MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2328250885 · doi:10.1177/0706743716635549

Validation of the French Version of Conners’ Parent Rating Scale Revised, Short Version: Factorial Structure and Reliability

2016· article· en· W2328250885 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pierre Fumeaux, Catherine Mercier, Sylvain Roche, Jean Iwaz, Michel Bader, Philippe Stéphan, René Écochard, Olivier Revol

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois
KeywordsGuttman scalePsychologyConstruct validityCategorical variableRating scaleReliability (semiconductor)Confirmatory factor analysisClinical psychologyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsStructural equation modelingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of the most frequent neurodevelopmental disorders. Its diagnosis requires reference questionnaires such as the Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS). Presently, in French-speaking countries, a few translations of the revised short CPRS have been put to use without previous formal validation. We sought here for the validation of a French version (Lausanne, Switzerland) of the revised short CPRS regarding construct validity, internal consistency, and item reliability in a sample of French schoolchildren. METHOD: The study involved 795 children and adolescents aged 9 to 19 years from a single school. The factorial structure and item reliability were assessed with a confirmatory factor analysis for ordered categorical variables. The dimension internal consistency was assessed with Guttman's lambda 6 coefficient. RESULTS: The results confirmed the original and strong 3-dimensional factorial structure (Oppositional, Cognitive Problems/Inattention, and Hyperactivity), showed satisfactory item reliability, and indicated a good dimension internal consistency (Guttman's lambda 6 coefficient: 0.87, 0.90, and 0.82, respectively, to the 3 dimensions). CONCLUSIONS: Thus, the Lausanne French version of the revised short CPRS may be considered validated regarding construct validity and item and dimension reliability; it can be now more confidently used in clinical practice.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder→French-language works237,207→