MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128748561 · doi:10.1177/1073191120986622

Exploring the Psychometric Properties and the Factor Structure of the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia Across the Schizotypy Continuum

2021· article· en· W3128748561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manel Monsonet, Thomas R. Kwapil, Neus Barrantes‐Vidal

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats
KeywordsSchizotypyPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisPsychopathologyClinical psychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychosisPsychometricsDepression (economics)PsychiatryConstruct validityExperience sampling methodStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) across different levels of the schizotypy continuum. A combined sample of high-schizotypy, at-risk mental states, and patients with first-episode psychosis was assessed for depression and other clinical and functional outcomes. Additionally, experience sampling methodology was used to assess depressive and psychotic-like experiences in daily life. The CDSS exhibited solid internal consistency, validity, and discrimination between depressed and nondepressed participants. Confirmatory factor analyses and the associations of the resulting factors with clinical and functional measures supported a two-factor structure that included general depression and guilt factors. Furthermore, both factors of the CDSS were differentially related to positive and negative symptoms of psychosis in daily life. The CDSS appears to have two underlying psychopathological dimensions and to be a reliable and valid measure for assessing depression across the schizotypy continuum.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessmentSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207