MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1669805518 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n2p198

Validation of the Waterpipe Tolerance Questionnaire Among Jordanian School-Going Adolescent Waterpipe Users

2015· article· en· W1669805518 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sukaina Alzyoud, Sreenivas P. Veeranki, Khalid Kheirallah, Ali M. Shotar, Lori Pbert

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHashemite University
KeywordsArabicReliability (semiconductor)Scale (ratio)Exploratory factor analysisClinical psychologyInternal consistencyValidityPsychologyEnvironmental healthMedicinePsychometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Waterpipe use among adolescents has been increasing progressively. Yet no studies were reported to assess the validity and reliability of nicotine dependence scale. The current study aims to assess the validity and reliability of an Arabic version of the modified Waterpipe Tolerance Questionnaire WTQ among school-going adolescent waterpipe users. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study conducted in Jordan, information on waterpipe use among 333 school-going adolescents aged 11-18 years was obtained using the Arabic version of the WTQ. An exploratory factor analysis and correlation matrices were conducted to assess validity and reliability of the WTQ. RESULTS: The WTQ had a 0.73 alpha of internal consistency indicating moderate level of reliability. The scale showed multidimensionality with items loading on two factors, namely waterpipe consumption and morning smoking. CONCLUSION: This study report nicotine dependence level among school-going adolescents who identify themselves as waterpipe users using the WTQ.

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)0.005
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207