Development and Validation of the Human Papillomavirus Attitudes and Beliefs Scale in a National Canadian Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents' human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination decision-making is strongly influenced by their attitudes and beliefs toward vaccination. To date, psychometrically evaluated HPV vaccination attitudes scales have been narrow in their range of measured beliefs and often limited to attitudes surrounding female HPV vaccination. The study aimed to develop a comprehensive, validated and reliable HPV vaccination attitudes and beliefs scale among parents of boys. METHODS: Data were collected from Canadian parents of 9- to 16-year-old boys using an online questionnaire completed in 2 waves with a 7-month interval. Based on existing vaccination attitudes scales, a set of 61 attitude and belief items were developed. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's α and stability over time with intraclass correlations. RESULTS: The HPV Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (HABS) was informed by 3117 responses at time 1 and 1427 at time 2. The HABS contains 46 items organized in 9 factors: Benefits (10 items), Threat (3 items), Influence (8 items), Harms (6 items), Risk (3 items), Affordability (3 items), Communication (5 items), Accessibility (4 items), and General Vaccination Attitudes (4 items). Model fit at time 2 were: χ/df = 3.13, standardized root mean square residual = 0.056, root mean square error approximation (confidence interval) = 0.039 (0.037-0.04), comparative fit index = 0.962 and Tucker-Lewis index = 0.957. Cronbach's αs were greater than 0.8 and intraclass correlations of factors were greater than 0.6. CONCLUSIONS: The HABS is the first psychometrically-tested scale of HPV attitude and beliefs among parents of boys available for use in English and French. Further testing among parents of girls and young adults and assessing predictive validity are warranted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".