MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376485238 · doi:10.29399/npa.28438

THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY OF THE TURKISH FORM OF CLINICAL ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW FOR NEGATIVE SYMPTOMS

2023· article· en· W4376485238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sefa Vayısoğlu, Sevilay Karahan, Şeref Can Gürel, A. Elif Anıl Yağcıoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueNöro Psikiyatri Arşivi · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositive and Negative Syndrome ScalePsychologyClinical psychologyConvergent validitySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Global Assessment of FunctioningIntraclass correlationCronbach's alphaPsychiatryValidityScale for the Assessment of Negative SymptomsDiscriminant validityScale (ratio)Minnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPsychometricsNegative symptomPsychosisPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This study aims to translate and investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS), which has additional features compared to other scales in assessing negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. Methods: The Turkish version of CAINS was constructed upon an initial translation to Turkish, and an English back translation of the scale was later conducted. The patients diagnosed with schizophrenia (n=79) according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) diagnostic criteria were administered the Turkish version of CAINS, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) and the Simpson-Angus Extrapyramidal Side Effects Assessment Scale (SAS). In addition, two interviewers assessed the video recordings of 11 patients for reliability analysis. Results: Inter-rater reliability was found to be high (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.831). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that Cronbach's alpha was 0.956 for the full scale, and the two-dimensional structure explained the scale better. In convergent validity analyses, CAINS overall scores correlated significantly with the SANS total score (r=0,932) and PANSS negative score (r=0,902). In discriminant validity analyses, CAINS overall scores markedly correlated with the SAPS total (r=0,615), PANSS positive (r=0,497) and PANSS general psychopathology (r=0,737) scores. Additionally, when CGI and GAF scores were considered covariant, the significant correlation of CAINS total scores with the SANS total and PANSS negative scores continued; however, the correlation with PANSS positive score was prominently reduced, and the correlation with PANSS general psychopathology disappeared. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the CAINS appears to be a valid and reliable tool with strong psychometric properties in a sample consisting of 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNöro Psikiyatri ArşiviSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207