Validation francophone de la CASIG-rev – un outil clinique visant à soutenir le rétablissement des personnes avec un trouble psychiatrique: French validation of the CASIG-rev – a clinical personal recovery assessment for people with psychiatric disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are few tools capable of measuring the personal recovery of individuals presenting with mental disorders that take into account the various dimensions of recovery. Personal recovery encompasses several objectives at the level of autonomy, positive interpersonal relationships, mental and physical health, self-acceptance, the school/professional domain, as well as developing a life project. A team of practitioners and researchers from four countries (Canada, Belgium, France, and Switzerland) adapted the Client Assessment of Strengths, Interests, and Goals (CASIG) tool to more accurately measure these different aspects of personal recovery. This study aims to validate the revised version of CASIG (CASIG-rev) in French, in terms of construct validity, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and clinical sensitivity to change. METHOD: A total of 272 individuals were recruited across different French-speaking countries to respond to the CASIG-rev online, as well as Ryff's well-being measure, the Recovery Assessment Scale, and the WHODAS. A subgroup of 29 individuals responded again to the CASIG-rev after 1 month (for temporal stability), and 24 again at six months (for sensitivity to change). RESULTS: The confirmatory factor analysis suggests a 5-factor model, very similar to the initially proposed model of 6 factors. Convergent validity was demonstrated between the subscales of tools measuring similar concepts, and test-retest reliability was proven for the majority of scales. The CASIG-rev also appears to be sensitive to clinical or rehabilitation changes, notably at the level of the life project. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of the CASIG-rev in French to measure the recovery of individuals presenting with mental disorders, as well as to support practitioners in the evaluation of their programs and interventions. Limitations, as well as the tool's relevance, are presented. An English validation is underway to make the CASIG-rev available in Anglo-Saxon countries.
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 | 0.033 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".