[Validity and reliability of the Turkish form of symptom interpretation questionnaire].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of Symptom Interpretation Questionnaire (SIQ) that was developed by Robbins and Kirmayer (1991). METHOD: Subjects of the study were: 53 patients with medically unexplained somatic complaints (MUS) that were referred to I. Psychiatry Clinic of Ankara Numune Teaching and Research Hospital, 26 patients who were diagnosed as Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) based on their mental complaints, and 71 healthy individuals (Control). RESULTS: Construct validity of SIQ was studied with factor analysis and the scale is statistically shown to consist of three theoretical styles of symptom attribution; normalizing, psychologizing and somatizing. Criterion related validity of normalizing subscale was shown with the absence of significant correlations between SIQ-normalizing scale and either Toronto Alexythimia Scale-20 or SIQ-number of symptoms. Validity of psychologizing subscale was demonstrated by obtaining higher significant mean psychologizing subscale scores in MDD group when compared with mean scores in MUS and Control groups. Criterion related validity of somatizing subscale was shown with significant correlations between SIQ-somatizing scale and SIQ- number of symptoms, and by demonstrating that mean somatizing subscale scores in patients with history of physical disease was significantly higher from mean scores in patients without such history. Internal reliability of SIQ subscales were, alpha=0.86 for normalizing subscale, alpha=0.87 for psychologizing subscale and alpha=0.87 for somatizing subscale. CONCLUSION: Internal reliability, criterion related validity, discriminating power for specific groups and construct validity of the SIQ Turkish version were demonstrated to be satisfactorily valid and reliable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".