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
BACKGROUND: The Nursing Work Index (NWI) provided the foundation for three published instruments, each presented as a valid measure of the nursing practice environment. Aiken and Patrician [Aiken, L. H., & Patrician, P. A. (2000). Measuring organizational traits of hospitals: The Revised Nursing Work Index. Nursing Research, 49, 146-153] revised the NWI to the Revised Nursing Work Index (NWI-R), reporting four conceptually derived subscales. Lake [Lake, E. T.(2002). Development of the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index. Research in Nursing and Health, 25,176-188] used factor analysis to empirically derive five subscales with a composite overarching practice environment factor. Estabrooks et al. [Estabrooks, C. A., Tourangeau, A. E., Humphrey,C. K., Hesketh, K. L., Giovannetti, P., Thomson, D., et al. (2002). Measuring the hospital practice environment: A Canadian context. Research in Nursing and Health, 25, 256-268] reported a single empirically derived factor solution that represented the nursing practice environment. OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of three instruments (based on the NWI) as measures of the nursing practice environment. METHODS: The measurement models underlying the three instruments were reconstructed from the information provided by each author in published manuscripts and then were estimated using structural equation modeling (SEM), the chi-square test of model fit, and data from the 1998 Canadian Nurse Survey. RESULTS: Each of the three underlying measurement models was factor analytic in design (multiple indicators of each concept) and failed significantly when compared with the data (Aiken & Patrician; chi2 = 939.12, p <.001, df = 50; Lake, chi2 = 17,872.73, p <.001, df = 319; Estabrooks et al., chi2= 38,590.29, p <.001). This lack of model fit with the data raises questions about the validity of these instruments as measures of the nursing practice environment. DISCUSSION: The nursing practice environment is complex and has been examined inadequately by factor-analytic approaches, largely because insufficient attention has been paid to implicit underlying theory. The development and testing of robust theory using powerful research methods available to examine causal relationships in complex theoretical models will advance understanding of constructs such as the nursing practice environment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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