L'Échelle De Dépression Postnatale D'Edimbourg: Validité Au Québec Auprès De Femmes De Statut Socio-éConomique Faible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the construct validity and reliability of a Quebec version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for a population of low-socioeconomic-status mothers. This scale was constructed for the specific purpose of measuring mothers' symptoms of depression during the postnatal period in an effort to alleviate the validity problems that could arise from depression scales intended for the general population. Two hundred and twenty-four mothers participating in a Quebec prevention program, "Naître égaux, grandir en santé" (Martin & Boyer, 1995) filled out the EPDS between the 22nd and the 35th day postpartum. A confirmatory factor analysis, conducted with LISREL, gives a 2-factor structure for the EPDS, the first representing symptoms of depression and the second symptoms of anxiety. This structure differs from the one presented by Cox, Holden, and Sagovsky (1987), authors of the EPDS. It corresponds, however to the results of other authors who looked at the EPDS with confirmatory factor analysis (Pop, Komproe, & van Son, 1992) and indicates a good construct validity. The reliability of the scale also appears satisfactory, with a Cronbach alpha co-efficient of 0.82.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".