Measuring a new facet of post traumatic growth: Development of a scale of physical post traumatic growth in men with prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study developed a measure of physical post traumatic growth (physical post traumatic growth inventory; P-PTGI) in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: A pool of items was created from themes identified in a qualitative study. A quantitative study was then conducted to assess the psychometric properties of the P-PTGI in a sample of 693 prostate cancer survivors. RESULTS: Tests of dimensionality revealed that the 20-item P-PTGI contained two factors: Health Autonomy and Health Awareness. Results demonstrated that scale score reliability for the P-PTGI and its subscales was excellent. In support of the scale's convergent validity, scores on the P-PTGI correlated positively with mindfulness and quality of life, and correlated negatively with depression and anxiety. A statistically significant correlation between the P-PTGI and another robust indicator of post traumatic growth attests to its concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: While further investigation of the P-PTGI's psychometric properties is required, preliminary findings are promising.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".