Psychometric Evaluation of the Team Member Perspectives of Person-Centered Care (TM-PCC) Survey for Long-Term Care Homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Person-centered care (PCC) is fundamental for providing high-quality care in long-term care homes. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of an 11-item Team Member Perspectives of Person-Centered Care (TM-PCC) survey, adapted from White and colleagues (2008). In a cross-sectional study, 461 staff from four long-term care homes in Ontario, Canada, completed the TM-PCC. Construct validity and internal consistency of the TM-PCC were examined with a principal component analysis and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Findings revealed a three-component structure with factor 1, Supporting Social Relationships; factor 2, Familiarity with Residents’ Preferences; and factor 3, Meaningful Resident⁻Staff Relationships. The TM-PCC, as compared to the original survey, presented with less components (i.e., did not address Resident Autonomy, Personhood, Comfort, Work with Residents, Personal Environment, and Management Structure), yet included one new component (Meaningful Resident⁻Staff Relationships). The TM-PCC has a similar internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 0.82 vs. White et al. 0.74⁻0.91). The TM-PCC can be used to assess PCC from the staff’s perspective in long-term care homes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".