Validität der Konfliktachse der Operationalisierten Psychodynamischen Diagnostik (OPD-1) - empirische Ergebnisse und Folgerungen für die OPD-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Using specific psychometric instruments, we investigate criteria-related validity of axis III ("conflicts") of OPD-1 by a priori formulated hypotheses concerning the relations to the main conflict/mode. METHODS/SAMPLE: A consecutive sample of 105 psychotherapy inpatients was examined using self-assessment scales (Inventory of Interpersonal Problems; Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Test of Self-Conscious Affect; Toronto Alexithymia-Scale; Frankfurt Self Concept Scales) and videotaped OPD research interviews in the first week after admission to the hospital. Two OPD-certified raters first rated the interviews independently, then in a consensus rating. RESULTS: Due to the different frequency of the main conflict and mode, evaluation of 4 of 7 conflicts was possible. The a priori hypotheses could be confirmed for the conflicts Dependence versus Autonomy (both modes), Submission versus Control (active mode), Desire for Care versus Autarchy (active mode), and Self-Value (passive mode). DISCUSSION: Confirmation of the a priori hypotheses indicates validity of axis III (Conflicts) of OPD. We discuss the small numbers of some conflicts, the comparison of expert rating OPD with self-assessment and the meaning of the results for OPD-2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.086 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".