Reliability and validity of the Turkish form of the Somatosensory Amplification Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the authors aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS) that was developed by Barsky et al. in the Turkish population. The study was carried out with 42 patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome and Asthma Diseases attending to outpatient Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation and Chest Diseases clinics and 86 healthy students from Karadeniz Technical University. SSAS scores were normally distributed, and had acceptable test-retest reliability (r: 0.73) and internal consistency (alpha, 0.62-0.76). Item to scale correlations varied from 0.10 to 0.72, and most were highly significant. Whereas, one item (item 1) in the control group and one item (item 2) in the patients group had low item-total score correlation (r < 0.15). Criterion related validity of the SSAS was shown with significant correlation between the Symptom Interpretation Questionnaire, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Symptom Check List 90 Revised somatization subscale. The validity analysis of the scale resulted in a very high significant difference (P < 0.01) between the mean SSAS scores of the control and patient's group. Test-retest, internal reliability, and item-total score correlation, discriminating power for specific groups and criterion related validity of the SSAS show that the scale has acceptable reliability and validity for the Turkish population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".