MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103563576 · doi:10.1177/1074840712449204

Psychometric Development of the Iceland-Expressive Family Functioning Questionnaire (ICE-EFFQ)

2012· article· en· W2103563576 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eydís Kristín Sveinbjarnardóttir, Erla Kolbrún Svavarsdóttir, Birgir Hrafnkelsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisConstruct validityClinical psychologyWrightIntervention (counseling)Construct (python library)PsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Instruments that are able to capture changes related to an intervention are of great value to the scientific as well as to the clinical community. The Iceland-Expressive Family Functioning Questionnaire (ICE-EFFQ) measures expressive emotions, collaboration, problem solving, communication, and behavior in families experiencing a chronic or an acute illness. The conceptual framework of the Calgary Family Assessment Model (Wright & Leahey, 2009) was used to construct the original questionnaire of 45 items and 10 subcategories. A total of 557 family members with a recent illness experience of a close relative answered the ICE-EFFQ in three different studies. Principal component factor analysis reduced the original questionnaire to 22 items with five factors emerging and a total Cronbach's alpha coefficient of α = 0.912 accounting for 60.3% of the total variability. Confirmatory factor analysis from two studies produced the final version of the questionnaire consisting of 17 items and four factors.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family NursingSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207