MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787311254 · doi:10.1192/bjp.2017.23

Self-Stigma in Relatives of people with Mental Illness scale: development and validation

2018· article· en· W2787311254 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily Morris, Catriona Hippman, Greg Murray, Erin E. Michalak, Jennifer E. Boyd, James Livingston, A. Inglis, Prescilla Carrion, Jehannine Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsPsychologyMental illnessStigma (botany)Clinical psychologyScale (ratio)DeclarationConstruct validityLikert scalePsychiatryPsychometricsSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Serious mental illness (SMI) is profoundly stigmatised, such that there is even an impact on relatives of people with SMI. Aims To develop and validate a scale to comprehensively measure self-stigma among first-degree relatives of individuals with SMI. METHOD: We conducted group interviews focusing on self-stigma with first-degree relatives (n = 20) of people with SMI, from which 74 representative quotations were reframed as Likert-type items. Cognitive interviews with relatives (n = 11) identified 30 items for the Self-Stigma in Relatives of people with Mental Illness (SSRMI) scale. Relatives (n = 195) completed the scale twice, a month apart, together with four external correlate scales. RESULTS: The 30-item SSRMI was reliable, with scores stable over time. Its single-factor structure allowed generation of a 10-item version. Construct validity of 30- and 10-item versions was supported by expected relationships with external correlates. CONCLUSIONS: Both versions of the SSRMI scale are valid and reliable instruments appropriate for use in clinical and research contexts. Declaration of interest None.

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)0.001
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessFrench-language works237,207