The Professionalism and Environmental Factors in the Workplace Questionnaire<sup>®</sup>: development and psychometric evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this paper is to describe the development and testing of a questionnaire intended to determine key professionalism attributes and key environmental attributes that influence the professionalism of nurses in their practice environments. BACKGROUND: Rapid changes in the healthcare sector and human resource shortages have had an impact on the stability of global work environments, making maintaining professionalism a challenge. The literature consists of descriptive research, opinion and theoretical papers. METHOD: The Professionalism and Environmental Factors in the Workplace Questionnaire was developed and tested from 2005 to 2007 in three phases: item generation, pretesting and pilot testing. Convenience sampling was used to obtain representative samples of the target population in the pretest and pilot test. Mailed survey methodology was used in the pretest and pilot test. Sample sizes for the pretest and pilot test were 46 and 848 respectively. RESULTS: Psychometric testing indicated preliminary instrument validity and reliability. Factor analysis resulted in stable factors that mirrored the conceptual basis of the questionnaire. The results summarize nurses' ratings of professionalism and environmental attributes that play a role in their work lives. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire helps nurses reflect on their practice and provides a starting point for discussion, planning and implementation of methods to support professionalism in practice and healthy work environments. It is internationally relevant because professionalism is a construct that transcends culture. Confirmatory factor analysis is needed to validate the results of this study. Testing with populations in different settings and additional validity and reliability testing will strengthen the questionnaire.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".