MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612867239

Development of a concussion perceptions questionnaire

2014· article· en· W2612867239 on OpenAlex
Fergal O’Hagan, Hugo Lehmann, Keith McChesney

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

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionCronbach's alphaPsychologyClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Injury preventionApplied psychologyPoison controlDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence and consequences of concussion injury have given impetus to efforts to curb concussion injury and reduce long-term effects through public awareness and education campaigns directed at concussion beliefs. The field lacks a standardized instrument to measure concussion beliefs. We report on the development of a concussion perceptions questionnaire (CPQ). We base the CPQ on the Common Sense Model (CSM) of Illness Representation. The CSM is a systems approach to self-regulation, which posits that processing of internal and external stimuli prompt mental and emotional representations of health that guide coping and prevention behaviours, which are then appraised relative to valued outcomes. Items were modified from the Illness Perceptions Questionnaire - Revised. We validated the CPQ using attitudes and intentions items towards protective behaviour derived from a review of the literature, concussion programs and the authors’ personal experience and knowledge of concussion injury in sporting contexts. To examine scale structure, we administered items (38) to a sample of 243 undergraduate students (20y, 87% women, 28% athletes, 34% concussion exposure). We validated the scale with items examining attitudes and intentions toward prevention behaviours. We used principal components analysis to examine scale structure, item loading and model fit. Reliability coefficients were subsequently generated for identified subscales. Analysis yielded seven subscales consistent with the dimensions identified in previous research (personal and treatment control, timeline, cyclicality, understanding, consequences, emotions) accounting for 67 percent of the variance. Item loadings (all > .56) and communalities (all >.44) were satisfactory. Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable (>.71) for all but the personal control subscale (.61). Factor scores were related to attitudes and intentions towards protective behaviours in predictable ways. The CPQ provides a theoretical informed, empirically sound and efficient base for conducting research and evaluating concussion beliefs.

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)0.001
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 score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.291 · 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