Occupational risk perception: A scale development study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: The determination of occupational risk perception is the basic tool for making attitude and behaviour changes, for improving health and safety sense. In the present paper, we aim to develop a reliable and valid occupational risk perception measurement.Methods: Cross-sectional survey design was used in the 2015-2016 academic year with a sample of involved students studying in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grades (N = 439). 423 nursing students was recruited in the study. We evaluated the reliability and validity, consistency by using explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha values and The Pearson correlation coefficients of the new scale.Results: After the explanatory factor analysis the scale was composed of 17 items and 3 subscales which named psychological and ergonomic risks subscale and person and institution-related risks subscale and the physical environment subscale. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.826. The scale’s confirmatory factor analysis showed good conformance.Conclusions: The scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool for measuring occupational risk perceptions among nursing students. This scale is used to determine the occupational risk perceptions in the field of healthcare.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".