MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105559923 · doi:10.1177/0890334402239732

Translation and Validation of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale Into Spanish: Data From a Puerto Rican Population

2003· article· en· W2105559923 on OpenAlexaff
Marcelina Molina Torres, René R. Dávila Torres, Ana Morán Rodríguez, Cindy‐Lee Dennis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Lactation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingPsychologyScale (ratio)PsychometricsPuerto ricanPopulationReliability (semiconductor)HumInternal consistencyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePediatricsEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many new mothers discontinue breastfeeding prematurely due to difficulties encountered rather than maternal choice. Research has shown that a significant predictor of breastfeeding duration is maternal confidence. Using self-efficacy theory as a conceptual framework to measure breastfeeding confidence, the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale (BSES) was developed and psychometrically tested among English-speaking mothers. The purpose of this methodological study was to translate the BSES into Spanish and determine the psychometric characteristics of the BSES in a sample of 100 Puerto Rican women. The psychometric assessment of the original study was replicated including internal consistency, principal components factor analysis, and comparison between contrasted groups. This study is the first to examine the psychometric characteristics of the Spanish-version BSES administered in-hospital and provide further evidence of the reliability and validity of the instrument.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations81
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human LactationSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207