Factor analysis of the French version of the shorter 12‐item Perception of Aggression Scale (POAS) and of a new modified version of the Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary Staff attitudes to violence by psychiatric patients may have an impact on the therapeutic relationship. The French versions of the Perception of Aggression Scale and of a new Modified version of the Overt Aggression Scale are two useful tools for evaluating the subjective experience of and attitudes towards inpatient violence. Future study on the management of inpatient violence may use the French version of these scales to evaluate and monitor psychiatric staff attitudes towards violence and subjective experience of the frequency of inpatient violence. Abstract Psychiatric staff perceptions of aggression by psychiatric patients may affect the therapeutic relationship between care providers and patients in institutions. Attitudes to and the subjective experience of violence may also differ substantially between members of a single care team. This study seeks to validate the French versions of scales of staff attitudes to and subjective experience of institutional violence: a new, modified version of the Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) to measure the subjective perception of the frequency of aggression in the ward; and the Perception of Aggression Scale (POAS) to assess attitudes to the expression of violence by psychiatric patients. Frontline staff ( n = 362) from eight French‐language psychiatric institutions in the province of Quebec were surveyed. Factor analyses were performed to determine the validity of the French‐language MOAS and POAS. As expected, a four‐factor structure emerged for the MOAS. For the 12‐item POAS, a three‐factor structure was found: (1) ‘Aggression as a dysfunctional/undesirable phenomenon’; (2) ‘Aggression as a positive expression’; and (3) ‘Aggression as a protective measure’. This study supports use of the French MOAS and POAS in assessing staff attitudes to and subjective experience of aggression in future projects to explore the perception and management of inpatient violence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".