MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991850354 · doi:10.1080/10503307.2012.662606

Development and initial validity of the Object Relations Rating Scale

2012· article· en· W1991850354 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Diguer, Dominick Gamache, Olivier Laverdière

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyObject relations theoryDiscriminant validityRating scaleConceptualizationInter-rater reliabilityConvergent validityTest validityScale (ratio)NeuroticismPersonalityObject (grammar)PsychometricsSession (web analytics)Social psychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyArtificial intelligenceInternal consistencyComputer sciencePsychoanalytic theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to report on the development and the initial validation of the Object Relations Rating Scale (ORRS), which is a measure of in-session enactments of object relations that draws on a psychodynamic conceptualization of personality organization. Forty participants were included in the study, distributed among neurotic, borderline and psychotic personality organizations (PO). Results showed that the interrater reliability of this new measure is good. Two tests of criterion validity support the validity of the measure: the ORRS discriminates well between the three PO groups and it correlates in expected ways with five PO dimensions. Finally, ORRS scales that pertain to the degree of in-session object relation enactments correlated with a measure of transference intensity (convergent validity), and correlations with therapists experience were low as expected (discriminant validity).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychotherapy ResearchSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207