Turkish Adaptation of the Revised Version of the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR-R): A Validity and Reliability Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to adapt the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Revised Semi-Structured Interview (DCPR-R-SSI) into Turkish and assess its psychometric properties. METHOD: This study was conducted with two separate samples of patients diagnosed with psychosomatic disorders between the ages of 18-65 at Gazi University Psychiatry Clinic. For inter-rater reliability analysis, a sample of 100 participants was evaluated by two raters and kappa coefficient was calculated. Validity analysis used samples from both patient and community groups. For criterion validity, the relationship between DCPR diagnoses and the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), Patient Health Questionnaire 15 (PHQ- 15), Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI) and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) was analyzed with the Point Biserial Correlation Coefficient. The distribution of DCPR diagnoses in the community and hospital samples was analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age of the sample for inter-rater reliability analysis was 33.5±13.0 years and 55% were female. Kappa values for 14 DCPR-R diagnoses were between 0.823-0.964. The hospital and community samples included 110 people from the community and 100 from the hospital. In the validity analyses, Allostatic Overload showed a significant relationship with HADS-Depression, HADS-Anxiety, PHQ-15 and HAI. Demoralization and Demoralization with Hopelessness showed a significant relationship with all scales. Type A Behavior was weakly correlated with all scales, whereas Alexithymia was strongly correlated with the TAS. The five most common DCPR-R diagnoses were Allostatic Overload (55.2%), Demoralization (36.1%), Alexithymia (29.0%), Type A Behavior (27.6%), Irritable Mood (15.7%), Persistent Somatization (11.9%) and Health Anxiety (10.9%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the Turkish version of DCPR-R is a valid and reliable measurement tool.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it