Cultural adaptation of the nursing activities score to the French-Canadian context and reliability evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Evaluating nursing activities in the direct care provided tool and intensive care unit (ICU) patient is important to better understand the intensity of care required by patient and then, to better distributes human and financial resources. The Nursing Activities Score (NAS) is a 23- item tool aimed at quantifying the nursing time in IUC patient direct care. \nAim : The aim of this paper is to present the cultural adaptation of the NAS to the French-Canadian context and the results of the assessment of its reliability. \nMethods : Phase 1 of this methodological study was the cross-cultural adaptation of NAS and its tutorial as follows: translation, synthesis of translation, back-translation, evaluation by an expert committee, and pretest. In Phase 2, reliability was assessed according to the criterion of interrater agreement in three specialized ICUs, by three evaluators: one pair of nurses and one expert. \nResults : The total score exhibited an intra-class coefficient of 0.90, indicating a good overall agreement among the three judges. Concerning the items separately, Kappa-Fleiss coefficients indicated that 65% of the items (15/23) presented clear evidence of agreement. Items with lower levels of agreement were those with multiple-choice answers (i.e., monitoring; administrative tasks, hygiene, mobilization, support and care of relatives and patient) and some related to specific treatments. \nConclusion : The French-Canadian version of the NAS and its tutorial were content validated by the target users. The evaluation of its reliability indicated a good overall agreement among judges for the total NAS score, but the multiple-choice items and some items related to specific interventions remain a challenge for the standardisation of scores among different users. The training of nurses for the NAS use is imperative for the accurate use of its tutorial and scoring. The evidence of the validation of this version will be the topic of a further publication.
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 | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".