MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555581813

POSTER: Factor Structure, Wording Effects, and Reliability Estimates in Health and Housing Specific Self-efficacy Scales with Individuals who are Homeless or Vulnerably Housed

2016· article· en· W2555581813 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueITC 2016 Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolychoric correlationExploratory factor analysisConfirmatory factor analysisLikert scalePsychologyOrdinal ScaleStructural equation modelingOrdinal dataScale (ratio)Factor analysisInternal consistencyStatisticsPsychometricsCompetence (human resources)Clinical psychologyEconometricsMathematicsSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCorrelation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Among individuals who are homeless or vulnerably housed (HVH), most research has focused on efforts to make health and housing resources more available and accessible, with only recent interest in the role of self-efficacy (one’s sense of personal competence) for this group. The 8-item Perceived Health Competence Scale (PHCS) and 7-item Housing SE Scale (HSES) measure health and housing specific SE, respectively. Each scale uses a total score, implying the scales are at least essentially unidimensional. The factor structures of these scales, however, have yet to be verified with a HVH sample. Objectives The study purpose was to examine the factor structure and reliability of scores of the PHCS and HSES with a sample of 333 HVH men and women. Design/Methodology Data were obtained from the Health and Housing in Transition (HHiT) study. Because the scales use 5-point Likert-type response formats, a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model was tested with each scale using a robust ordinal estimator and fit was determined using CFI and RMSEA (with 90% confidence intervals). With a lack of fit, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and parallel analysis, based on the polychoric matrix, were employed to verify the number of factors. Internal consistency was examined using ordinal alpha. Results Results showed that a one-factor CFA model for strict unidimensionality did not fit the data for either scale. For each scale, EFA showed extra covariance that suggested a possible minor (negative) wording factor, but parallel analysis clearly supported an essentially unidimensional factor structure. Ordinal alpha was .87 for the PHCS and .85 for the HSES. Conclusions This study found, that despite some minor effects of (negative) wording, both the PHCS and HSES were essentially unidimensional. This supports using a total score for each scale. Moreover, reliability estimates for both scales were satisfactory for this HVH sample.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.312 · 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