Psychometric Testing of Two Chinese-Version Scales on Attitudes Toward and Caregiving Behaviors for End-of-Life Patients and Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study purpose was to examine the validities and reliabilities of the Chinese-versions Frommelt Attitudes Toward Care of the Dying Scale (Attitudes Scale) and Caregiving Behaviors Scale for End-of-Life Patients and Families (Behaviors Scale). The scales were tested in a convenience sample of 318 nurses with ≥6 months work experience at three hospitals. Cronbach's alphas of the Attitudes and Behaviors Scales were .90 and .96, respectively. Each scale had Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index >.85 and Bartlett's test of sphericity >4000 ( p < .001). Attitudes Scale loaded on three factors: respecting and caring for dying patients and families, avoiding care of the dying, and involving patients and families in end-of-life care. The Behaviors Scale loaded on two factors: supporting dying patients and families, and helping families cope with grief. Factor loadings for both scales were ≥.49. Both Attitudes and Behaviors Scales are reliable and valid for evaluating nurses' attitudes and caregiving behaviors for the dying.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".