Evidências de validade de conteúdo da versão brasileira do Cognitive Symptom Checklist-Work-21
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMO Objetivo: realizar a adaptação transcultural e avaliar as evidências de validade de conteúdo do Cognitive Symptom Checklist-Work-21 para o contexto brasileiro. Método: estudo psicométrico de adaptação transcultural, abrangendo as etapas de tradução, reconciliação, retrotradução, avaliação de equivalência intercultural e análise das evidências de validade de conteúdo, considerando parâmetros de Content Validy Ratio em sobreviventes de câncer de mama. Resultados: as traduções demonstraram equivalência à versão original. Expressões coloquiais foram modificadas, o tempo verbal ajustado, e dois itens contendo múltiplos comandos foram separados. A versão final passou a conter 22 itens, apresentando equivalências semântica, conceitual, idiomática e experimental. Os valores de CVR mantiveram-se acima de 0,87. O pré-teste indicou boa compreensão e facilidade no processo de resposta. Conclusão: a versão final foi definida como “Lista de verificação de sintomas cognitivos relacionados ao trabalho - 22 itens”, apresentando boa equivalência linguística e fortes evidências de validade de conteúdo no contexto brasileiro.
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 | 0.135 | 0.322 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".