MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976485494 · doi:10.1177/1073191111411669

One-Year Test-Retest Reliability of the Inventory of Statements about Self-Injury (ISAS)

2011· article· en· W1976485494 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine R. Glenn, E. David Klonsky

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyIntrapersonal communicationClinical psychologyTest validitySuperordinate goalsTest (biology)PsychometricsReliability (semiconductor)Interpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a growing public health problem among adolescents and young adults. The Inventory of Statements About Self-Injury (ISAS) is a self-report measure designed to assess NSSI behaviors and functions. The current study examines the one-year test-retest reliability of the ISAS in a sample of young adult self-injurers. Results indicate that the ISAS behavioral and functional scales demonstrate good stability over one year. For the behavioral scales, test-retest correlations ranged from .52 (biting) to .83 (burning), with a median of .68. For the functional scales, test-retest correlations were .60 for the superordinate intrapersonal functions scale and .82 for the superordinate interpersonal functions scale. Regarding individual functions, test-retest correlations ranged from .35 (affect regulation) to .89 (peer bonding), with a median of .59. Findings suggest the ISAS has good test-retest reliability and contributes to the growing literature on the psychometric properties of the ISAS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations143
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207