Evaluating the Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Intensions Health-Related Masculine Values Scale: Is It Really a Measure of Health-Related Masculine Values?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Intensions Health-Related Masculine Values Scale (IHRMVS) was recently developed to address the growing interest in examining the associations between strengths-based masculinity and men’s health. However, while the original development and validation work was promising, replication and extension of several aspects of the scale’s validity should be undertaken before the scale can be adopted for widespread use. Using a large sample of British men, aged 18-80 years, exploratory factor analyses revealed a single factor for both the original age grouping (18-29 years, n = 166) and an older group of men (≥ 30 years, n = 404), failing to replicate the two-factor structure proposed in the parent study. Additionally, correlations between scores on the IHRMVS and scores on a measure of traditional male role norms were mostly non-significant or very small. Similar findings emerged in our analyses of the associations between scores on the IHRMVS and indices of depression, anxiety, help-seeking attitudes, sleep disturbance, and smoking. These findings draw into question the utility of the IHRMVS as a measure of positive, health-related masculine values.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".