UpStart Parent Survey—Prenatal: A New Tool for Evaluating Prenatal Education Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a new prenatal education program evaluation tool, the UpStart Parent Survey - Prenatal, in terms of: (a) reliability and validity; (b) sensitivity to change over time; (c) whether results differed for mothers versus fathers; and (d) whether results differed when using an electronic tablet-computer versus a paper survey. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: Psychometric study. Participants were 277 expectant mothers (n = 161) and fathers (n = 106) enrolled in Childbirth Essentials, a 6-week prenatal education program. MEASURES: The UpStart Parent Survey - Prenatal is a retrospective pretest/posttest survey with three scales: Parenting Knowledge, Parenting Experience, and Program Satisfaction, and three open-ended questions. RESULTS: The UpStart Parent Survey - Prenatal is sensitive to change and demonstrated significant positive differences in parenting knowledge and parenting experience. There was no difference in results whether the survey was completed by mothers or fathers. Results were similar whether paper or electronic formats were used. The survey was easy to complete. CONCLUSION: The UpStart Parent Survey - Prenatal holds promise as a reliable and valid evaluation tool to capture outcomes of brief prenatal education programs that target the general population of expectant parents.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".