Psychometric Properties of a Pictorial Instrument for Assessing Psychopathology in Youth Aged 12 to 15 Years: The Dominic Interactive for Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Over the last 15 years, adequate psychometric properties of the different versions of the Dominic led to the development of the Dominic Interactive for Adolescents (DIA). The DIA is a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Fourth Edition, Text Revision-based self-administered computerized pictorial instrument for assessing the most frequent mental disorders in adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. Our study aims to verify the internal consistency, the test-retest estimate of reliability, and the criterion-related validity of this instrument. METHOD: The total sample included 607 adolescents living in the Montreal urban area recruited from the community (465 French-speaking) and the clinical population (142 French-speaking). Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha coefficients and test-retest estimate of reliability by the kappas and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Two criteria are indicative of criterion-related validity of the DIA: clinical judgment on the presence or absence of symptoms (scored independently by 3 judges) and the adolescents' referrals to outpatient psychiatric clinics. RESULTS: For most symptom scales of the DIA, Cronbach's alpha coefficients varied from 0.69 to 0.89, test-retest kappas were 0.50 or greater, and ICCs ranged from 0.78 to 0.87. The criterion-related validity was demonstrated for symptoms, symptom scales, and the categories based on the symptom scale cut-off points. CONCLUSION: As no informant can be considered the criterion standard of psychopathology, the interview with adolescents regarding their own symptoms is necessary. Findings from our study reasonably support adequate psychometric properties of the DIA in adolescents aged 12 to 15 years.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".