MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990780562 · doi:10.1177/107319110100800201

Measuring Adaptive Behavior in Inpatient Neuropsychiatry: The Behavioural Assessment Scale

2001· article· en· W1990780562 on OpenAlexaff
Grant L. Iverson, Todd S. Woodward

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaRiverview HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychiatryPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsScale (ratio)PopulationSample (material)PsychiatryAdaptive behaviorMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Behavioural Assessment Scale (BAS) was administered to a sample of 95 inpatients with neuropsychiatric conditions. The total scores in the sample ranged from 26 to 145 (maximum possible score is 163), without any evidence of the "floor effect" encountered with other tests used with this population. Investigation into the psychometric structure of the BAS revealed three factors interpreted as Daily Living Skills, Communication/Social Skills, and Problem Behavior. The high intercorrelation between the two dominant factors was interpreted as general sensitivity of the BAS to global decline in functioning associated with severity of illness. These results confirm a previous psychometric investigation carried out on an elderly psychiatric sample. A recommendation is made for interpreting subscales based on these factor domains when specific abilities are of interest and using a Global Functioning subscale as a measure of overall adaptive behavior for both adult and geriatric inpatient neuropsychiatry patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207