A Structural Evaluation of the Expanded Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale with a Diverse Sample of Caucasian/European, Native, and Black Canadian Women
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scale is a widely used measure of the factors that people believe exert some control over their health. The purpose of the research reported here is to provide an independent evaluation of the structural properties of the recently expanded MHLC. Specifically we sought to address the issue of the interdependence of the external locus of control scales (Powerful Others, God, and Chance) and the legitimacy of the addition of a measure of God control as a separate subscale in the expanded MHLC. The study is based on an ethnically diverse sample of 371 community women, recruited through a random digit dialing procedure, who responded to all the items on the expanded MHLC. Although, the three external factors (God, Powerful Others, and Chance) are substantially correlated, structural analyses indicate that a four-factor model consisting of the three external scales and the Internal control scale provides the best fit to the observed covariances among the items. We view this result as supporting the addition of the God subscale as a separate dimension of external health locus of control. We also find support in these results for the continued scoring of four subscales on the MHLC rather than combining the three external subscales on one dimension as some have suggested.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it