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 OpenAlexaff
Lorraine A. Watson, Kathleen Oberle, Danielle Deutscher

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Nursing & HealthSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207