Validation de la version française de l'inventaire de détresse péritraumatique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article outlines the French translation and validation of the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) in a psychotrauma outpatient sample. METHOD: A total of 127 French-speaking individuals were assessed from 2001 to 2002, at their first psychiatric visit for a traumatic event. An assessment at 3 months was offered by mail to control temporal stability. RESULTS: The PDI French validation has good internal consistency, with a 0.83 Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Test-retest shows a very satisfying temporal stability, with a 0.79 coefficient of intraclass correlation in a confidence interval between 0.61 and 0.89. The concurrent validity analyzed through the correlation with the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R), the Peritraumatic Dissociation Questionnaire (PDEQ), and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) is very good. Further, the principal component analysis shows a bivariate solution that explains 45% of variance. CONCLUSION: The PDI French version has a satisfying psychometric validity. Moreover, the factor pattern in this translation is very close to that in the PDI's original version.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".