Rhodes Index of Nausea and Vomiting???Form 2 in Pregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread application of Rhodes Index of Nausea and Vomiting-Form 2 (INV2) in practice and research, empirical analyses have not been consistently performed to verify the a priori factors that guided the subclass construction of the symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To examine the dimensional structure of Rhodes INV in a sample of pregnant women. METHOD: Data were collected from 152 pregnant women who were experiencing some degree of nausea and vomiting during early pregnancy and analyzed using structural equation modeling techniques. Five competing measurement structures were tested and compared. The structure (model) that provided the closest fit to the data was selected and relationships (factor loadings) between the constructs and indicators were established. RESULTS: The model fitting the data the closest was a three-factor structure measuring nausea, vomiting, and retching as three separate, but correlated dimensions. The factor loadings were high (0.73-0.96) and significant (p < .001). The model treating nausea and vomiting as a one-factor concept as well as the model including two factors named symptom occurrence and symptom distress did not fit the data. CONCLUSION: Rhodes INV2 is a valid measurement tool if subscales are formed to reflect the multidimensional structure of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".