Development and Validation of Questionnaires Exploring Health Care Professionals' Intention to Use Wiki-Based Reminders to Promote Best Practices in Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about factors influencing professionals' use of wikis. OBJECTIVE: We developed and validated two questionnaires to assess health care professionals' intention to use wiki-based reminders for the management of trauma patients. METHODS: We developed questionnaires for emergency physicians (EPs) and allied health professions (AHPs) based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and adapted them to the salient beliefs of each, identified in an earlier study. Items measured demographics and direct and indirect theoretical constructs. We piloted the questionnaires with 2 focus groups (5 EPs and 5 AHPs) to identify problems of wording and length. Based on feedback, we adjusted the wording and combined certain items. A new convenience sample of 25 EPs and 26 AHPs then performed a test-retest of the questionnaires at a 2-week interval. We assessed internal consistency using Cronbach alpha coefficients and temporal stability of items with an agreement intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Five EPs and 5 AHPs (3 nurses, 1 respiratory therapist, and 1 pharmacist) formed 2 focus groups; 25 EPs and 26 AHPs (12 nurses, 7 respiratory therapists, and 7 pharmacists) completed the test and retest. The EP questionnaire test-retest scores for consistency (Cronbach alpha) and stability (ICC) were intention (test: Cronbach alpha=.94; retest: Cronbach alpha=.98; ICC=.89), attitude (.74, .72, .70), subjective norm (.79, .78, .75), perceived behavioral control (.67, .65, .66), attitudinal beliefs (.94, .86, .60), normative beliefs (.83, .87, .79), and control beliefs barriers (.58, .67, .78) and facilitators (.97, .85, .30). The AHP questionnaire scores for consistency and stability were: intention (test Cronbach alpha=.69, retest Cronbach alpha=.81, ICC=.48), attitude (.85, .87, .83), subjective norm (.47, .82, .62), perceived behavioral control (.55, .62, .60), attitudinal beliefs (.92, .91, .82), normative beliefs (.85, .90, .74), and control beliefs barriers (.58, .55, .66) and facilitators (.72, .94, -.05). To improve the psychometric properties of both questionnaires, we reformulated poorly consistent or unstable items. CONCLUSIONS: Our new theory-based questionnaires to measure health care professionals' intention to use wiki-based reminders have adequate validity and reliability for use in large surveys. In the long run, they can be used to develop a theory-based implementation intervention for a wiki promoting best practices in trauma care.
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 | 0.032 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".