Factor Structure and Measurement Invariance of a 10-Item Decisional Balance Scale: Longitudinal and Subgroup Examination Within an Adult Diabetic Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the longitudinal and subgroup measurement properties of a 10-item, physical activity decisional balance scale, previously published by Plotnikoff, Blanchard, Hotz, and Rhodes (2001 Plotnikoff, R. C., Blanchard, C., Hotz, S. B. and Rhodes, R. 2001. Validation of the decisional balance scales in the exercise domain from the Transtheoretical Model: A longitudinal test. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 5: 191–206. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]), within a diabetic sample of Canadian adults. Results indicated that a three-factor measurement model consistently improved model fit compared to the previously published two-factor model. Evidence of configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance across time and among subgroups suggests that the 10-item decisional balance scale is appropriate for investigating associative relationships with other constructs and for comparing group means of the pros and cons subscales among a variety of diabetic population subgroups.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".