MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2435340029 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v6n10p122

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the nursing students’ attitudes toward mental health nursing and consumers instrument

2016· article· en· W2435340029 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcos Hirata Soares, Margarita Antônia Villar Luis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisDescriptive statisticsStructural equation modelingPsychologyExploratory factor analysisMental healthNursingScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyMedicinePsychometricsStatisticsPsychiatryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the instrument “Nursing Students’ Attitudes Toward Mental Health Nursing and Consumers” for use among Nursing students in Brazil. The subjects were 91.3% female and 8.7% male and their ages ranged from 18 to 58 years, with a mean (M) of 21.9 years and a standard deviation (sd) of 3.88 years. The study included students from the undergraduate course in Nursing of five higher public education institutions, with a total of 393 students. Of these, 365 answered the questionnaires at their two application times, resulting in 92.87% full participation in the study. Regarding the school year, 23.9% were from 2013 and 76.1% from 2014. The data were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program, v.21, to be analyzed by descriptive exploratory analysis, correlations analysis, means comparison and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with the exploratory factor analysis technique and oblique rotation. Convergent validity was used as the form of validation, using the Authoritarianism and Minority View dimensions of the Opinions about Mental Illness (OMI) Scale. After generating the structure of the instrument to be tested, the Confirmatory Factor Analysis technique (CFA) was used, through the Structural Equation Modeling technique (SEM), with AMOS/SPSS, v.22, to identify and specify the model, through Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation. The fit was given by the X2 model, and the absolute, incremental and parsimonious fit indices.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207