MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001319935 · doi:10.1080/00224490609552335

The recalled childhood gender questionnaire‐revised: A psychometric analysis in a sample of women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia

2006· article· en· W2001319935 on OpenAlexaff
Heino F. L. Meyer‐Bahlburg, Curtis Dolezal, Kenneth J. Zucker, Suzanne J. Kessler, Justine Schober, Maria I. New

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsCongenital adrenal hyperplasiaCronbach's alphaPsychologyDiscriminant validityDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyScale (ratio)PsychometricsMedicineInternal consistencyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We administered the 18-item Recalled Childhood Gender Questionnaire-Revised (RCGQ-R), female version, to 147 adult women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) representing three different degrees of prenatal androgenization due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency and to non-CAH controls. A principal components analysis generated three components accounting for 46%, 9%, and 6% of the variance, respectively. Corresponding unit-weighted scales (high scores = feminine) were labeled Gender Role (13 items; Cronbach alpha = .91), Physical Activity (3 items; alpha = .64), and Cross-Gender Desire (2 items; alpha = .47). Discriminant validity was demonstrated in terms of highly significant comparisons across the four groups. We conclude that the first 2 RCGQ-R scales show good psychometric qualities, but that the third scale needs to be further evaluated in a sample that includes women with gender identity disorder.

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)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207