Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: An international <scp>D</scp> elphi study in intensive care settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Behaviour change interventions often target 'important' beliefs. The literature proposes four methods for assessing importance of attitudinal beliefs: elicitation frequency, importance ratings, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate). We tested congruence between these methods in a Delphi study about selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD improves infection rates among critically ill patients, yet uptake in intensive care units is low internationally. METHODS: A Delphi study involved three iterations ('rounds'). Participants were 105 intensive care clinicians in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand. In Round 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit beliefs about delivering SDD. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants completed questionnaires, rating agreement and importance for each belief-statement (9-point Likert scales). Belief importance was assessed using elicitation frequency, mean importance ratings, and prediction of global attitude (Pearson's correlations; beta-weights). Correlations between indices were computed. RESULTS: Participants generated 14 attitudinal beliefs. Indices had adequate variation (frequencies: 4-94, mean importance ratings: 4.93-8.00, Pearson's correlations: ± 0.09 to ± 0.54, beta-weights: ± 0.01 to ± 0.30). SDD increases antibiotic resistance was the most important belief according to three methods and was ranked second by beta-weights (behind Overall, SDD benefits patients to whom it is delivered). Spearman's correlations were significant for importance ratings with frequencies and correlations. However, other indices were unrelated. The top four beliefs differed according to the measure used. CONCLUSIONS: Results provided evidence of congruence across three methods for assessing belief importance. Beta-weights were unrelated to other indices, suggesting that they may not be appropriate as the sole method. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on this subject? Attitudinal beliefs (specific beliefs about the consequences of performing an action) are key to designing interventions to change intentions and behaviour. The literature reports four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: frequency of elicitation in interviews, importance ratings in questionnaires, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate) of global attitude scores. The congruence between these measures of importance is not known. What does this study add? Four indices of importance were examined in a multi-professional, international study about the use of selective digestive decontamination to prevent infection in intensive care settings. Three indices were correlated with one another. Each method used to assess importance produced a different subset of the most important beliefs. Selection of the most important beliefs should use multiple assessment methods. This evidence suggests that multiple regression approaches may not be appropriate as the sole method for assessing belief importance.
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 | 0.135 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".