Portuguese Version of the Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The aim of the present study is to provide validation data regarding the Portuguese version of the Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised in nonclinical individuals. Two studies were undertaken with two different nonclinical samples in order to demonstrate reliability, concurrent, predictive, and construct validity, and in order to establish an appropriate cut-score for nonclinical individuals. A sample of 810 community adults participated in Study 1. Results from this study provided information regarding scale internal consistency, confirmatory factor analysis, and concurrent validity. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis established a cut-off score to be used for screening purposes with nonclinical individuals. A sample of 440 young adults participated in Study 2, which demonstrated scale score internal consistency and 5-month predictive validity. Further, 5-month test-retest reliability was also evaluated and the correlations of SBQ-R scale scores with two other measures that assess constructs related to suicidality, depression and psychache, were also performed. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken to demonstrate the robustness of the result obtained in Study 1. Overall, findings supported the psychometric appropriateness of the Portuguese Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".