Being, belonging and becoming: Development of the 3B Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to assess the construct validity and internal consistency of a measure used by an occupation-based, mental health program. The measure was formulated according to the 3B theory of being, belong and becoming and system impacts. METHODS: The scale was administered to a sample of 122 current members of Northern Initiative for Social Action. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to examine the model fit of the 3B Scale. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha measure of internal consistency. RESULTS: The CFA confirmed the four hypothesised underlying constructs of the 3B theory. The results of the CFA reported adequate model fit. Each factor had good to excellent internal reliability with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.81 to 0.91. CONCLUSION: The 3B Scale is a valid and reliable tool for measuring Being, Belonging and Becoming needs in an occupation-based mental health program. The 3B Scale is an example of an outcome measure created specifically to quantify program outcomes and demonstrates that instruments suited to unique programs can be individually configured and assist occupational therapists in their efforts to measure client perspectives. These are the essential first steps to client-centred practice and the development of practice-based evidence. The 3B Scale may be useful to similar peer-led programs, as well as community-based occupational programs that foster participation. Further research is needed to determine whether the 3B Scale can detect change over time.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".