Development and preliminary validation of the Scleroderma Support Group Leader Self-efficacy Scale
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Support groups are an important resource for people living with systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma). Peer support group leaders play an important role in the success and sustainability of SSc support groups, but face challenges that include a lack of formal training. An SSc support group leader training program could improve leader self-efficacy to carry out important leadership tasks, including the management of group dynamics. However, no measures exist to assess self-efficacy among SSc support group leaders. The objective of this study was to develop and provide preliminary evidence on the reliability and validity of the Scleroderma Support Group Leader Self-efficacy Scale (SSGLSS). The SSGLSS was administered to two sets of SSc support group leaders from North America, Europe, and Australia. Study 1 participants (n = 102) completed the SSGLSS only. Study 2 participants (n = 55) completed the SSGLSS and the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). For both studies, we evaluated internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Convergent validity was assessed in Study 2 using Pearson correlations of the SSGLSS with the OLBI exhaustion and disengagement subscales. Cronbach's alpha was 0.96 in Study 1 and 0.95 in Study 2. Consistent with our hypotheses, there was a small negative correlation between SSGLSS scores and the OLBI exhaustion subscale (r = -0.25, p<0.01) and a moderate negative correlation between SSGLSS scores and the disengagement subscale (r = -0.38, p<0.01). These results suggest that the SSGLSS is a reliable and valid measure of self-efficacy for carrying out support group leadership tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it