MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999702049 · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.363

The Physical Health Questionnaire (PHQ): Construct Validation of a Self-Report Scale of Somatic Symptoms.

2005· article· en· W1999702049 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron C. H. Schat, E. Kevin Kelloway, Serge Desmarais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSaint Mary's UniversitySt. Mary's UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologyConstruct validityExploratory factor analysisClinical psychologyPsychometricsPatient Health QuestionnaireScale (ratio)Test validityConcurrent validityHeadachesDepressive symptomsPsychiatryStructural equation modelingAnxietyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report the results of 3 studies that were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Physical Health Questionnaire (PHQ), a brief self-report scale of somatic symptoms. In Study 1, exploratory factor analysis results revealed 4 empirically distinct dimensions of somatic symptoms: gastrointestinal problems, headaches, sleep disturbances, and respiratory illness. In Study 2, this structure was replicated using confirmatory factor analysis, and correlations of the PHQ dimensions with measures of negative affect, psychological health, and job performance provided further validity evidence. In Study 3, a minor revision to the wording of several items helped to address the limitations of one of the PHQ subscales. Together, these results provide evidence of the construct validity of the PHQ.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.448 · 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

Citations310
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational Health PsychologySame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207