MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1573029198 · doi:10.1177/1090198115598986

Validation of the Sexual Communication Self-Efficacy Scale

2015· article· en· W1573029198 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Quinn‐Nilas, Robin R. Milhausen, Rebecca Breuer, Julia Bailey, Menelaos Pavlou, Ralph J. DiClemente, Gina M. Wingood

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education & Behavior · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsCondomPsychologyScale (ratio)Psychological interventionReproductive healthSelf-efficacyClinical psychologyConstruct validityDevelopmental psychologyPopulationMedicineSocial psychologyPsychometricsEnvironmental healthPsychiatryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed a newly developed Sexual Communication Self-Efficacy Scale designed to measure the sexual communication self-efficacy of adolescent men and women. Three-hundred and seventy-four U.K. adolescents completed this new scale, along with several other validity measures. Factor analysis revealed that the Sexual Communication Self-Efficacy Scale consisted of five underlying factors: contraception communication, positive sexual messages, negative sexual messages, sexual history, and condom negotiation. These factors demonstrated high internal consistency and presents evidence to support construct validity. This scale may have utility in assessing the effectiveness of interventions designed to enhance sexual communication and sexual health behaviors among young people.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations68
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Education & BehaviorSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207