Physicians' knowledge of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of otitis media: design of a survey instrument.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a survey instrument with good internal consistency and test-retest reliability to explore the level of knowledge among Nova Scotia family physicians concerning the risk factors, signs and symptoms, and treatment of otitis media and the use of pneumatic otoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort design. SETTING: Fee-for-service family practices in Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 25 family physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the survey. RESULTS: The constructs including "signs and symptoms of otitis media with effusion" and "comprehensive knowledge scores" showed excellent internal consistency with Kuder-Richardson 20 scores greater than 0.7 whereas the construct "signs and symptoms of acute otitis media" has a Kuder-Richardson 20 score of 0.54 after deletion of several items. The Cohen kappa and Spearman rho tests showed the survey has very good test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire that we developed proved to have very good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. We hope to use this questionnaire to explore the practice patterns of family physicians in managing otitis media disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".