Assessment of Construct Validity of a Tool to Measure the Quality of Brief Advice for Dietary Sodium Reduction by Health Care Providers (P16-056-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test the construct validity of the Sodium Advice Score (SAS). The SAS is a tool developed to measure the quality of brief advice provided by health care providers (HCP) about dietary sodium reduction. The validation of this tool will support its implementation in a behavioural intervention trial. Thirty English speaking patients with a diagnosis of hypertension and no memory impairments were recruited from a primary care clinic in Ontario, Canada. Patients were randomized to a high quality dietary sodium advice group or to a low quality dietary sodium advice group. Each intervention was delivered by a registered dietitian and took no longer than 5–7 minutes for high quality advice and 1–2 minutes for low quality advice. After the dietary sodium advice was provided the patient completed the SAS tool (< 5 minutes). Frequency, type and duration of advice was assessed by the SAS tool, which had a maximum score of 16. Therefore, the high quality advice had an expected SAS score of 16. The low quality advice had an expected SAS score of 5. Patients included were 71.3 ± 7.9 years old and 53% were male. Overall, 43% and 47% of patients had received previous counseling from a dietitian and family doctor, respectively. Mean daily sodium intakes of 2593 ± 1403 mg/day and 3040 ± 2283 mg/day were similar between high and low quality advice groups. The mean SAS score was 6.9 ± 3.6 (range: 2 to 14) in the low quality advice group and 14.5 ± 1.5 (range: 10 to 16) in the high quality advice group. The high quality advice scores observed were statistically similar to the expected scores (P = 0.001), however the low advice scores were not. Overall, the low quality advice score was significantly lower than the high quality advice score (P < 0.000). The SAS tool showed evidence of construct validity as it can differentiate between high and low quality sodium reduction advice provided by HCPs. It can be used as a valid tool for measuring quality of brief sodium reduction advice by HCPs in future research. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".