MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085222011 · doi:10.1300/j499v08n01_02

Validation of a Partner Sexual Communication Scale for Use in HIV/AIDS Prevention Interventions

2007· article· en· W2085222011 on OpenAlexaff
Robin R. Milhausen, Jessica M. Sales, Gina M. Wingood, Ralph J. DiClemente, Laura F. Salazar, Richard A. Crosby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of HIV/AIDS Prevention in Children & Youth · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondomPsychological interventionEthnic groupPsychologyClinical psychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Scale (ratio)Internal consistencySexual orientationSex partnersDemographyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychometricsPsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper reports on three studies in which the Partner Communication Scale (PCS) is validated. The PCS assesses African American adolescent females' frequency of sexual communication with male sex partners. The PCS was administered to three samples of African American female adolescents (N = 522; N = 280; N = 715) ranging in age from 14 to 21. The PCS demonstrated strong internal consistency and acceptable stability over 6-month and 12-month follow-up periods. Scores on the PCS were correlated with frequency of parent communication, sexual communication self-efficacy, sexual refusal self-efficacy, fear of communication about condoms, partner-related barriers to condom use, relationship satisfaction, self-esteem, exposure to communication-related sex education in schools and condom use, particularly with nonsteady male sex partners. The present investigation indicates that the PCS is a reliable and valid measure of frequency of sexual communication for female adolescents with their male sex partners. Future research with the PCS with more diverse samples in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, age and sexual orientation will be useful to establish its reliability and validity for these adolescent subgroups.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations46
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HIV/AIDS Prevention in Children & YouthSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207