MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061450677 · doi:10.1002/nur.20292

Development and psychometric testing of the nurses' attitudes toward obesity and obese patients (NATOOPS) scale

2008· article· en· W2061450677 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaPsychometric testingConstruct validityScale (ratio)PsychometricsObesityClinical psychologyMedicinePsychologyTest (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)Content validityInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to develop and test an instrument to measure nurses' attitudes towards obesity and obese adult patients. Items were based on an earlier version of the instrument, obesity discrimination research, and clinical experience. After content validation of items, the instrument was sent to 1,400 randomly selected Registered Nurses. Factor analysis yielded a 5-factor solution, with 36 items reaching loadings of .4 or greater. Cronbach's alpha was .81 for the reduced scale, with a range of .45 to .79 on the five factors. Construct validity was supported by significant differences between contrast groups on three factors and consistency with underlying theory. Overall the instrument demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and could be used in future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.324
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it