1564 – Reliability And Validity Of The Thai Version Of The Calgary Depression Scale For Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Thai version of the CDSS for the evaluation of depression in patients with schizophrenia. Method Sixty patients with schizophrenia according to DSM-IV-TR were recruited in the study. The Thai version of CDSS, the Mongomery and Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-item version (HDRS-17), and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were administered. Major depressive episode diagnosed by a psychiatrist according to the DSM-IV-TR was used as a gold-standard. Results The internal consistency of the Thai version of CDSS was very good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.869). The inter-rater reliability was found to be in substantial agreement with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.979. The test-retest reliability over a period of three days was high, with the ICC of 0.861. The Thai version of CDSS showed significant correlations with the MADRS (r =0.887), the HDRS-17 (r=0.865) and the PANSS-G6 (r=0.833). The areas under the ROC curves of the CDSS, MADRS, HDRS-17, and PANSS-G6 against the DSM-IV-TR criteria for major depressive episode were 0.993, 0.954, 0.966, and 0.933, respectively. The optimal cut-off scores to discriminate between depressed and nondepressed patients was 6/7, with a sensitivity of 92.31% and specificity of 97.87%. Conclusion The Thai version of CDSS is a reliable and valid measure for the evaluation of depression in Thai patients with schizophrenia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".