A Partnership Development Process Assessment Scale for Public Health Nurses in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and test a Partnership Development Process Assessment (PDPA) scale for content and construct validity and internal consistency reliability. This is needed to document and evaluate community health partnership development processes between public health nurses and community-based organizations in Japan. DESIGN: The study was conducted in three phases. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted to generate items for a new scale. Thirty items were generated and reviewed by an expert panel for content validity and item refinement. A national postal survey of public health nurses was conducted to determine the scale's internal structure, evaluate its reliability, and explore its construct and criterion validity. MEASURES: Validity and reliability testing of the PDPA scale using a content validity index and analysis of correlations with an existing scale were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-six items were selected and grouped into four factors: activities to share roles to manage community health issues, platform activities to support partnerships, activities to evaluate partnership practices, and activities to share information regarding community health issues. After factor analysis, 23 items were retained. CONCLUSION: The PDPA scale is a valid and reliable instrument for public health nurses to assess partnership development activities.
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 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 | 0.020 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".