Stability and Validity of the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI) in Psychiatric Inpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forty-seven psychiatric inpatients in a Canadian psychiatric hospital participated in an evaluation of the stability and validity of the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI). Stability coefficients over a 1-month period were .85, .79, and .66 for the HPSI Psychiatric, Social, and Depression Symptomatology scales, respectively, and coefficient alpha reliabilities for these scales ranged between .76 and .89 across both time periods. Staff rating composite scales corresponding to the self-report HPSI scales had stability coefficients of .74, .85, and .82, respectively. As well, they had inter-rater reliabilities that ranged between .65 and .84 across both time periods. The 3 staff rating composites at time 1 correlated equivalently with the corresponding 3 primary HPSI scales at times 1 and 2 (p > .05). Similarly, the 3 staff rating composites at time 2 correlated equivalently with the corresponding 3 primary HPSI scales at times 1 and 2 (p > .05). Over a 1-month period, HPSI scale scores were very stable and correlations with criterion ratings were stable. Using a confirmatory factor analysis, with each of the 3 dimensions defined by the time 1 and 2 measures for the 3 HPSI scales and 3 staff rating composites, evidence for discriminant as well as convergent validity was obtained. In summary, the self-report HPSI and the staff rating composite measures evidenced sufficient reliability and validity to meet the requirements for routine clinical assessment work with psychiatric inpatients. Additionally, the stability data provide effects of retesting baseline data for assessing treatment outcome in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".