Zur Konstruktvalidität der Strukturachse der Operationalisierten Psychodynamischen Diagnostik (OPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As part of the concurrent validity, we aimed to empirically study the association between the axis IV (structure) of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics (OPD) and corresponding constructs, which were assessed byself-report measures. METHODS: The structural level of 132 psychiatric inpatients was related to the findings of the Borderline-Personality-Inventary (BPI) and the Toronto-Alexithymia-Scale (TAS-20). RESULTS: Analyses of variances indicated that patients with a good structural level scored lower on the BPI and its subscales than those with a low level. However, posthoc comparisons revealed that significant differences were only found between the good and the moderate or the low level respectively. There was no association between the structure and alexithymia. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some methodological limitations our findings point at a satisfactory validity of the axis "structure" of the OPD. However, its limited ability to discriminate between patients with a moderate and a low level of structural integration needs further attention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".