MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943249615 · doi:10.1037/pas0000723

Investigating the psychometric properties of the Suicide Stroop Task.

2019· article· en· W2943249615 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly M. Wilson, Alexander J. Millner, Randy P. Auerbach, Catherine R. Glenn, Jaclyn C. Kearns, Olivia J Kirtley, Sadia Najmi, Rory C. O’Connor, Jeremy G. Stewart, B. Christine

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthTommy Fuss FundAmerican Foundation for Suicide PreventionU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsStroop effectPsychologyConcurrent validityPoison controlClinical psychologyContext (archaeology)PsychometricsInternal consistencyCognitionPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

s = .93-.94. All scoring approaches for suicide-related interference demonstrated poor classification accuracy (AUCs = .52-.56) indicating that scores performed near chance in their ability to classify suicide attempters from nonattempters. In the case of mean RTs, we did not find evidence for concurrent validity despite our excellent reliability findings, highlighting that reliability does not guarantee a measure is clinically useful. These results are discussed in the context of the wider implications for testing and reporting psychometric properties of behavioral measures in mental health research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 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

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207