Reliability, Validity, and Clinical Utility of the Dominic Interactive for Adolescents–Revised
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Dominic Interactive for Adolescents-Revised (DIA-R) is a multimedia self-report screen for 9 mental disorders, borderline personality traits, and suicidality defined by the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM-5). This study aimed to examine the reliability and the validity of this instrument. METHODS: French- and English-speaking adolescents aged 12 to 15 years ( N = 447) were recruited from schools and clinical settings in Montreal and were evaluated twice. The internal consistency was estimated by Cronbach alpha coefficients and the test-retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficients. Cutoff points on the DIA-R scales were determined by using clinically relevant measures for defining external validation criteria: the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Aged Children, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, and the Abbreviated-Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses provided accuracy estimates (area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio) to evaluate the ability of the DIA-R scales to predict external criteria. RESULTS: For most of the DIA-R scales, reliability coefficients were excellent or moderate. High or moderate accuracy estimates from ROC analyses demonstrated the ability of the DIA-R thresholds to predict psychopathological conditions. These thresholds were generally capable to discriminate between clinical and school subsamples. However, the validity of the obsessions/compulsions scale was too low. CONCLUSIONS: Findings clearly support the reliability and the validity of the DIA-R. This instrument may be useful to assess a wide range of adolescents' mental health problems in the continuum of services. This conclusion applies to all scales, except the obsessions/compulsions one.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".