MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002614215 · doi:10.1037/sah0000224

Development and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS-BP).

2020· article· en· W3002614215 on OpenAlexaff
Wagner Silva Ribeiro, Petra C. Gronholm, Cristiane Silvestre Paula, Maurício Scopel Hoffmann, Angel Olider Rojas Vistorte, Camilla Zugman, Pedro Mário Pan, Jair de Jesus Mari, Luís Augusto Rohde, Eurı́pedes Constantino Miguel, Rodrigo A. Bressan, Giovanni Abrahão Salum, Sara Evans‐Lacko

Bibliographic record

VenueStigma and Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
FundersMedical Research CouncilHospital de Clínicas de Porto AlegreFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoEuropean Commission
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologySocioeconomic statusPortugueseDifferential item functioningScale (ratio)Structural equation modelingSocial psychologyClinical psychologyGerontologyPsychometricsDemographyMedicinePopulationItem response theoryStatisticsGeographyMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStigma and HealthSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207