MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092888874 · doi:10.1080/13854046.2020.1831076

A psychometric examination of the PAI-SF in persons with recent stroke

2020· article· en· W3092888874 on OpenAlexaffabout
Megan Udala, Lisa Ohlhauser, McKenzie Campbell, Annick Langlois, Damian Leitner, Maya Libben, Harry B. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaPsychologyClinical psychologyShort FormsStroke (engine)PsychometricsRehabilitationNeuropsychologyPersonalityPhysical therapyPsychiatryMedicineSocial psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The present study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Personality Assessment Inventory-Short Form (PAI-SF) for use with patients with recent stroke. Method: Study participants (N = 170) were inpatients in a tertiary hospital in Western Canada admitted to a rehabilitation department who completed a neuropsychological evaluation as part of their care. All participants completed the full-form of the PAI (344 items) and both full- and short-form (160 items) versions were scored from the same protocol. Results: Internal consistency for the PAI-SF scales was assessed by Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Alpha coefficients for clinical scales fell between the range of 0.53 (ANT) to 0.88 (ANX), with three scales (ANT, ALC, and DRG) falling below satisfactory (<0.70). Alpha coefficients were unsatisfactory for validity, treatment, and interpersonal scales. Absolute differences between mean clinical scale t scores between the full and short-form PAI clinical scales ranged from 0.04 (DEP) to 1.18 (MAN). For an individual, absolute differences in scale t scores between the full- and short-forms ranged from 0 to 30 t scores. On average, an individual varied 3.75 t scores between the PAI full- and short-form across all validity, clinical, interpersonal, and treatment scales. Component structure was similar across the full- and short-forms. Conclusions: Findings are somewhat consistent with previous literature on the PAI-SF as the full- and short-forms had minimal differences and similar psychometric properties. However, caution is warranted for the clinical utility for both forms given the lower alpha coefficients and different structure. Only certain clinical scales appear to have strong psychometric properties.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.106 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Clinical NeuropsychologistSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207