Psychometric Testing of the Health Options Scale with Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of psychometrically sound family measures that are appropriate for parents and their children is limited. As a result, children’s perspectives of their families, including their efforts to promote health, are virtually absent in the scientific literature. The 21-item Health Options Scale (HOS) was designed to measure health work, the process by which families work together to promote their health. Although evidence of reliability and validity of the HOS has been provided in adult samples, the psychometric properties of this scale have not been assessed in adolescents. In the current study, the reliability and validity of the HOS was assessed using data from a convenience sample of 188 Canadian adolescents, with the intention of retaining the 3 subscales of the HOS if possible. The original 21-item scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency and evidence of construct validity on initial testing. Scale modification to improve fit of the data with the 3-dimensional structure of the HOS using item analysis and confirmatory factory analysis yielded different findings that support the original 21-item HOS and a new 15-item version. Implications for additional testing of the HOSand general considerations related to choice of instrument development and testing strategies are addressed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".