MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331096803 · doi:10.1177/1039856212447966

Preliminary validation of the Nepean Dysphoria Scale

2012· article· en· W2331096803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Berle, Vladan Starčević

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Psychiatry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender dysphoriaScale (ratio)PsychologyDysphoriaClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyGeographyCartographyGender identityAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To present the psychometric properties of the Nepean Dysphoria Scale (NDS), the first instrument developed to measure the severity of dysphoria. METHOD: The NDS was administered to 134 university students and its characteristics were examined. The structure of the scale was investigated using exploratory factor analysis. Convergent and divergent validity were examined by investigating the associations between the NDS and its subscales with other conceptually similar (Beck Depression Inventory II, Dysfunctional Attitude Scale-Form A and Toronto Alexithymia Scale) and conceptually distinct (Anxiety Sensitivity Index) instruments. RESULTS: The 24-item NDS demonstrated excellent internal consistency. A four-factor solution was derived, with factors pertaining to irritability, discontent, surrender and interpersonal resentment. There were medium to strong correlations between the NDS and its subscales and depressive symptoms as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory II. The NDS and its subscales showed weaker, but still significant, correlations with Dysfunctional Attitude Scale-Form A, Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Anxiety Sensitivity Index. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that the NDS has good psychometric properties. Further research would more firmly establish the NDS as a valid measure of the complex emotional state of dysphoria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian PsychiatrySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207