MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883273441 · doi:10.1177/1073191118791042

Construct Validation of the Trauma Symptom Checklist–40 Total and Subscale Scores

2018· article· en· W2883273441 on OpenAlexaff
Jala Rizeq, David B. Flora, Doug McCann

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistPsychologyClinical psychologyConstruct (python library)Construct validityMeasurement invariancePsychometricsPsychiatryConfirmatory factor analysisStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Trauma Symptom Checklist-40 (TSC-40) is commonly used in clinical research to index history of childhood maltreatment and assess complex trauma symptomatology in adults. Yet the dimensional structure of this measure has not been examined. We examined the factor structure of the TSC-40 in a sample of 706 undergraduate students, measurement invariance of the TSC-40 across groups with or without a history of abuse-related and multiple trauma, and the association between the TSC-40 and other trauma indices. A higher order model of complex trauma symptomatology was optimal. The higher order model also demonstrated strong measurement invariance across participants with or without abuse-related and multiple trauma histories. The current findings support the dimensional structure of the TSC-40, as well as extending and revising its subscale composition. This study provided support for using the TSC-40 to measure trauma symptoms across groups exposed to different and multiple types of trauma and provided further evidence for the construct of complex trauma symptomatology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207