Developing and Validating a Questionnaire to Measure Spirituality: A Psychometric Process
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 purpose of the paper is to describe the processes undertaken to evaluate the psychometric properties of aquestionnaire developed to measure spirituality and examine the relationship between spirituality and coping in youngadults with diabetes.The specific validation processes used were: content and face validity, construct validity using factor analysis, reliabilityand internal consistency using test-retest reliability and Cronbach’s alpha correlation coefficient.The exploratory factor analysis revealed four factors: self-awareness, the importance of spiritual beliefs, spiritualpractices, and spiritual needs. The items on the Spirituality Questionnaire (SQ) revealed factor loading $\geq$0.5. Reliabilityprocesses indicated that the SQ is reliable: Cronbach’s alpha 0.94 for the global SQ and between 0.80-0.91 for the foursubscales. Test-retest statistic examination revealed stability of the responses at two time points 10 weeks apart.The final questionnaire consists of 29 items and the psychometrics indicated that it is valid and reliable.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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