Evaluating Paramedic Comfort with Field Pronouncement: Development and Validation of an Outcome Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Interventions designed to improve cardiac resuscitation and the quality of field pronouncement need to consider outcomes on paramedic providers. The authors developed and evaluated the reliability and validity of a survey instrument measuring paramedic comfort with field pronouncement. METHODS: A mail survey of 120 paramedics (EMT-Ps) was performed using the Modified Dillman survey methodology. Questions were sorted for analysis into subgroups assessing psychological comfort and technical skills. Sixty-five respondents were retested within two weeks. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 96% (115). Respondents had an average age of 36 years (SD +/- 5), with 5.2 years (SD +/- 3.8) of out-of-hospital experience as an EMT-P, and were involved in a median of ten field pronouncements annually (range = 2-60). The face and content validity of the survey instrument was consistent with a content matrix derived by a focus group. The Cronbach's alpha for the survey instrument was 0.91. The retest response rate was 76% (46). The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.84. CONCLUSIONS: This survey is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the paramedic psychological comfort with field pronouncement. The high response rate and intrareliability support its generalizability. This outcome measure may be helpful in evaluating the psychological impact of changes to emergency medical services (EMS) policy with respect to termination of resuscitation promoted by the National Association of EMS Physicians.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".