VALIDITY OF THE INSTRUMENT interRAI EMERGENCY SCREENER FOR PSYCHIATRY FOR THE BRAZILIAN CONTEXT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to carry out the translation and present the evidence of validity of the Brazilian version of the interRAI Emergency Screener for Psychiatry (ESP). Method: this is a cross-sectional study conducted in a municipal hospital in the metropolitan region of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul. A total of 161 patients were evaluated in the first 24 hours of emergency arrival using ESP. Exploratory factor analyses of the sections of the instrument and reliability analyses were conducted using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's Omega. Results: the analyses suggested an appropriate structure to the purpose of the instrument, two sections containing two factors instead of the expected one-dimensional structure. However, sections with two factors have interpretability and theoretical consistency. The factors presented internal consistency. Conclusion: the Brazilian version of the interRAI Emergency Screener for Psychiatry (ESP) demonstrates adequate psychometric properties through the internal structure of the instrument. Future studies should investigate the relationship of the scores produced by the instrument with clinical diagnosis and with covariates relevant to mental health outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".