Validation of the Canadian Version of the Shame and Stigma Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancers of the head and ne¬ck and their treatment can cause disfigurement and loss of functioning, with a profound negative impact on the person’s self-image and psychosocial wellbeing. This can lead to experiences of shame and stigma, which are important targets for psychosocial interventions. Accurate measurement and identification of these problems enables clinicians to offer appropriate interventions and monitor patients’ progress. This study aimed to validate the Canadian version of the Shame and Stigma Scale (SSS) among French and English speaking head and neck cancer patients. Data from 258 patients from two major Canadian hospitals was analysed. The existing 4-factor structure of the SSS was supported, with the following subscales: Shame with Appearance, Sense of Stigma, Regret, and Social/Speech Concerns. The Canadian SSS showed adequate convergent and divergent validity and test-retest reliability. Rasch analysis suggested scale improvement by removing two misfitting item and two items with differential functioning between French and English speaking patients. The final 16-item scale version had adequate fit to the Rasch model. The SSS provides more accurate measures for people with high levels of shame and stigma, and thus has utility in identifying patients with more severe symptoms who may be in need of psychosocial interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".