Psychometric evaluation of the Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation – General Population: Czech version
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. This study aimed to assess psychometric properties, such as reliability, construct validity, and cut-off scores, for the Czech version of the Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation – General Population (GP-CORE) questionnaire, a tool usable for repeated measurement of psychological distress within routine clinical settings. Participants and setting. Two general populations and one clinical sample were used with N values of 420, 394, and 345, respectively. Hypotheses. One of the competing theoretical factor solutions will demonstrate the best fit. Statistical analysis. To examine the factor structure of the GP-CORE, a confirmatory multidimensional item response theory analysis (graded response model) was employed. Results. The best fitting model was a bifactor solution representing one content domain of overall distress and two item wording domains (positively and negatively worded items). Clinical cut-off scores were determined to be 1.85 (men) and 1.90 (women). Study limitations. The GP-CORE can be used as an unidimensional measure of overall distress, but users have to be aware of the influence of positive vs. negative item wording on the responses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".