Adaptation, reliability and validity study of Type C Behavior Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The fact that breast cancer is a common type of cancer necessitates the research on the risk factors of it. Studies about type C personality, which is stated to be a risk factor for breast cancer, yielded controversial results regarding type C personality-cancer development relationship. Type C personality has two factors, namely self sacrificing behavior and emotional non-expressiveness. To measure type C personality traits in Turkish breast cancer patients, adaptation of Type C Behavior-TCB Scale and examination of its reliability and validity were necessary. Methods: One hundred and one Turkish breast cancer patients and a control group which consisted of 99 participants, who were not cancer patients, received Type C Personality Scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and extraversion subscale of Basic Personality Traits Inventory. One month after the first application, Type C Personality Scale was readministrated to measure test-retest reliability of the scale. Findings: Factor analysis confirmed the exact fit of the two-factor model. While the internal consistency reliability of the whole scale was 0.81, test retest reliability of the whole scale was 0.87. The internal consistency reliabilities of subscales were ranged between 0.80 and 0.86. In order to test divergent validity of the scale, extraversion subscale of the Basic Personality Traits Inventory (r=-0.24, p<0.05), and to test convergent validity of the scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale (r=0.52, p<0.01) were used. Discussion: The results of the study indicate that Turkish adaptation of the Type C Personality Scale has satisfactory reliability and validity values. (Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry 2012; 13:145-150)
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".