MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413590581 · doi:10.5080/u27635

Turkish Adaptation of the Revised Version of the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR-R): A Validity and Reliability Study

2025· article· en· W4413590581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammed Hakan Aksu, Damla Erbil, İrem Ekmekçi Ertek, Buket Koparal, Doğa Yöntem Aykurt, İhsan Yelli, Fatma Yaprak, Gökçenur Şimşek Avcı, Çağatay Haşim Yurtseven, Meltem Çınar Bozdağ, Bahadır Geniş, Behçet Çoşar, Ömer Aydemır

Bibliographic record

VenueTurkish Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)TurkishAdaptation (eye)ValidityPsychologyClinical psychologyReliability engineeringPsychometricsNeuroscienceEngineeringPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTurkish Journal of PsychiatrySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207