P2-S7.06 Factorial validity and internal consistency of the scale of attitude towards people living with HIV and AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The objective of the study was to investigate the factorial validity and internal consistency of the Scale of Attitude towards People Living with HIV and AIDS (SAPLWHA). Methods Between 15 March and 2 April 2010, a telephone survey was conducted among a representative sample of 1500 English and French speaking Quebecers between the ages of 15–64 years. The factorial validity of the scale was investigated in two steps: first, with exploratory factor analyses (EFA) (Principal Axis Factoring with oblique rotation) and second, with confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) (Weighted Least Squares estimation with polychoric correlations). The original sample was randomly separated into two subsamples and independently used for the EFA and CFA. Different indicators were used to assess the factorial structure. Results The best EFA model had a simple structure of seven moderately correlated factors: (F1): Fear of being infected; (F2): Personal contact; (F3): Prejudice, perceptions of risk groups; (F4): Liberalism; (F5): Social Support; (F6): Right to be informed / HIV confidentiality; (F7): Support to the criminalisation of disease transmission. This factor structure explained 44% of the variance which represents 76% of the total variance when the data are reduced to 7 dimensions. The reliability analysis showed a high internal consistency for the total scale (0.89), adequate values for all factors except F6 (0.70 to 0.79), and a moderate value for F6 (0.59). Although the CFA χ2test was not significant, fit indexes indicated that the seven factor model fits the data (Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation=0.0396; Comparative Fit Index=0.950; Non-Normed Fit Index=0.942; Goodness-of-Fit Index=0.981). Conclusions Results suggest that the SAPLWHA is a measure that adequately documents the current attitudes towards PLWHA. Factorial scores derived from this scale will allow external validity assessment as well as provide useful information for future awareness and compassion campaigns designed for the general population.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.008 |
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".