Development and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS-BP).
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of the study was to translate and validate the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS) into Brazilian Portuguese. A native Brazilian speaker fluent in English translated the RIBS into Brazilian Portuguese. Comprehensibility and face validity were assessed through discussions with mental health professionals and volunteers recruited from the community. Brazilian Portuguese version of the questionnaire was back-translated into English by another Brazilian researcher fluent in English and the researcher who developed the original RIBS was consulted to check the adequacy of the questionnaire translation, and approved the final translated version. RIBS-BP was administered to 1,357 caregivers from a community-based cohort. Internal consistency and factor loading were assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Differential item functioning was examined using Multiple Indicator Multiple Causes for subgroups of gender, socioeconomic status, and caregiver education. To assess external validity, we examined whether responses in RIBS-BP varied among these subgroups, considering respondents’ previous contact with people with mental illness. CFA fit indices were good to excellent (root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.07; 90% confidence interval, CI [0.04, 0.10]; comparative fit index [CFI] = 1.00; Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 1.00). All loadings were above 0.4 (0.73 to 0.89), indicating that intended behavior items are related to the same unidimensional latent factor. In the latent model, higher socioeconomic status was associated with less intended stigma-related behavior (β = 0.20, p < .001), adjusted for education and gender. RIBS-BP has good internal consistency, demonstrate measurement invariance among subgroups, and appears to be a valid measure of stigma, representing a suitable tool to assess reported and intended stigma-related behaviors in Brazil. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it