MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393257053 · doi:10.1080/07448481.2024.2317184

Factorial validity and gender invariance of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in student-athletes

2024· article· en· W4393257053 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Harenberg, Lindsey Keenan, Yvette Ingram, Sayre E. Wilson, Justine Vosloo, Miranda P. Kaye

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesMeasurement invariancePatient Health QuestionnairePsychologyClinical psychologyCollege healthTest validityPsychometricsApplied psychologyPhysical therapyMedicineConfirmatory factor analysisPsychiatryFamily medicineDepressive symptomsStructural equation modelingStatisticsAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Depressive symptoms are prevalent in student-athletes. Evidence for the factorial validity of measures assessing depressive symptoms in student-athletes is presently absent from the literature. This study examined the best fitting factorial structure and invariance across sexes of the PHQ-9. METHODS: Data were collected from 1,524 student-athletes from institutions in the North-Eastern United States. Confirmatory factor analyses of 4 factorial structures of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) were conducted, followed by invariance analyses across sexes. RESULTS: All tested models showed an excellent fit for all tested models and a unidimensional model of the PHQ-9 was chosen for further analyses. Metric and scalar invariance for the identified model across sexes was supported. The participants in this study reported an unusually low (3.13%) prevalence of elevated depressive symptoms, which may indicate underreporting of symptoms. CONCLUSION: the PHQ-9 is a valid assessment of depressive symptoms in male and female student-athletes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American College HealthSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207