MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083431315 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.150

Psychometric evaluation of the Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale for use with pregnant and postpartum women.

2008· article· en· W2083431315 on OpenAlexafffund
Nichole Fairbrother, Eileen K. Hutton, Kathrin Stoll, Wendy A. Hall, Sandy Kluka

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster UniversityWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)PsychometricsConvergent validityClinical psychologyInternal consistencyEdinburgh Postnatal Depression ScaleConstruct validityPostpartum depressionTest validityPopulationDevelopmental psychologyPregnancyPsychiatryDepressive symptomsMedicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although fatigue is a common experience for pregnant women and new mothers, few measures of fatigue have been validated for use with this population. To address this gap, the authors assessed psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) scale, which was used in 2 independent samples of pregnant women. Results indicated that the psychometric properties of the scale were very similar across samples and time points. The scale possesses a high level of internal consistency, has good convergent validity with measures of sleep quality and depression, and discriminates well from a measure of social support. Contrary to previous evaluations of the MAF, data strongly suggest that the scale represents a unidimensional construct best represented by a single factor. Results indicate that the MAF is a useful measure of fatigue among pregnant and postpartum women.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations62
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicPregnancy-related medical researchFrench-language works237,207