MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Accuracy of nurses' perceptions of voice hearing and psychiatric symptoms

2007· article· en· W2049964379 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret England

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyPsychiatryNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This article reports a study of nurses' assessments of a voice hearer's voices and psychiatric symptoms, and associations of these perceptions with nurses' education, career experience and primary care role. BACKGROUND: Traditional views in nursing suggest that to engage voice hearers in a discussion of their voices is to support the psychopathology of the voice hearers. Research into how voice hearers conceptualize voice hearing has generated a range of perspectives, raising concerns about whether nurses capture sufficient, accurate and specific assessment data about the experiences of voice hearers. METHOD: One hundred and fifteen psychiatric nurses rated items on an Inventory of Voice Experiences and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale while viewing a videotaped assessment of a voice hearer with serious and persistent mental illness. The voice hearer in the videotape used the same instruments to rate his own voices and symptoms. This self-assessment was undertaken 30 days before and immediately before production of the video-recorded assessment. The data were collected between 2000 and 2002. RESULTS: The voice hearer's ratings of his voice hearing experiences and psychiatric symptoms were consistent over a 30-day period. Most nurse ratings of the voice hearer's voices and psychiatric symptoms did not match those of the voice hearer. However, the voice hearer and nurses demonstrated a moderately positive association between the voice hearer's voices and symptoms. Ratings of graduate-educated case managers and clinical nurse specialists (n=30) in clinical practice settings were more consistent with one another and corresponded more closely with the ratings of the voice hearer, particularly for the association between the voice hearer's voices and symptoms. CONCLUSION: Accurate and specific assessment of voice hearing may facilitate engagement with voice hearers and improve the selection of strategies to help them manage the voices that upset them.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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 score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207