Development and Psychometric Tests of Midwife-Mother Relationship Scale (MMRS) in Delivery Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Midwives have different aspects of responsibility in terms of the normal and high-risk pregnancy in delivery room. Thus, this study aimed to develop a scale for evaluating the midwife- mother relationship in delivery room. This study was conducted from August 2014 and October 2015 in Arak, Iran. The present mixed-methods sequential exploratory (quantitative-qualitative) study used the content analysis method to design an initial Scale through a review of the literature. The validity of the Scale was ensured by assessing the face validity, content validity and construct validity (exploratory factor analysis with 480 mothers who hospitalized at post-partum ward in hospitals of Arak province), and its reliability was ensured by assessing its internal consistency (using Cronbach’s alpha) and by assessing its stability through the test-retest method. The qualitative stage of the study resulted in a 71-item Scale with four domains. Those with impact item index over 1.5, CVR over 0.42, and CVI over 0.79 were considered as valid; while the rest were eliminated resulting in a 48-item scale. After Performing the content and face analysis, a factor analysis was performed on 48 items of the scale, yielding a 43-item questionnaire with four domains, including “outcome”, “expectations” “effective factors on care” and “therapeutic alliance” which explained 60.4% of the variance. The reliability of the scale was confirmed with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93 and its stability was confirmed by an Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.90. MMRS was a valid and reliable instrument for measuring midwife- mother relationship in delivery room. It is easy to use scale and contains the most significant features of midwife-mother relationship.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".