Risk Engagement and Protection Survey (REPS): developing and validating a survey tool on fathers’ attitudes towards child injury protection and risk engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fathers play a unique role in keeping children safe from injury yet understanding of their views and attitudes towards protecting children from injury and allowing them to engage in risks is limited. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument to measure fathers' attitudes towards these two constructs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: An instrument was developed that used prior qualitative research to inform item generation. The questions were assessed for content validity with experts, then pilot-tested with fathers. The survey was completed by 302 fathers attending hospital with their child for an injury or non-injury reason. Results of confirmatory factor analysis identified eight items relating to the protection from injury factor and six items relating to the risk engagement factor. Correlation between the two factors was low, suggesting these are two independent constructs. CONCLUSIONS: The Risk Engagement and Protection Survey offers a tool for measuring attitudes and assisting with intervention strategy development in ways that reflect fathers' views and promotes a balanced view of children's needs for safety with their needs for engaging in active, healthy risk-taking.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".