The Development and Validation of the Client Expectations of Massage Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is evidence that client expectations influence client outcomes, a valid and reliable scale for measuring the range of client expectations for both massage therapy and the behaviors of their massage therapists does not exist. Understanding how client expectations influence client outcomes would provide insight into how massage achieves its reported effects. PURPOSE: To develop and validate the Client Expectations of Massage Scale (CEMS), a measure of clients' clinical, educational, interpersonal, and outcome expectations. SETTING: Offices of licensed massage therapists in Iowa. RESEARCH DESIGN: A practice-based research methodology was used to collect data from two samples of massage therapy clients. For Sample 1, 21 volunteer massage therapists collected data from their clients before the massage. Factor analysis was conducted to test construct validity and coefficient alpha was used to assess reliability. Correlational analyses with the CEMS, previous measures of client expectations, and the Life Orientation Test-Revised were examined to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the CEMS. For Sample 2, 24 massage therapists distributed study materials for clients to complete before and after a massage therapy session. Structural equation modeling was used to assess the construct, discriminant, and predictive validity of the CEMS. PARTICIPANTS: Sample 1 involved 320 and Sample 2 involved 321 adult massage clients. INTERVENTION: Standard care provided by licensed massage therapists. MAIN OUTCOMES: Numeric Rating Scale for pain and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Revised (including the Serenity subscale). RESULTS: The CEMS demonstrated good construct, convergent, discriminant and predictive validity, and adequate reliability. Client expectations were generally positive toward massage and their massage therapists. Positive outcome expectations had a positive effect on clients' changes in pain and serenity. High interpersonal expectations had a negative effect on clients' changes in serenity. CONCLUSIONS: Client expectations contribute to the nonspecific effects of massage therapy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".