Reliability Testing of the Team Member Mealtime Experience Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Team members influence the mealtime experience of residents. Their perspectives on their ability to provide resident- and relationship-centred care during mealtimes is limited. The aim of this study was to describe the development and determine the factor structure and internal and test-retest reliability of the Team member Mealtime Experience Questionnaire (TMEQ). A 23-item questionnaire was developed through several steps. A Likert scale of strongly disagree (score= 1) to strongly agree (score= 5) was used. A total of 137 team members from five diverse homes participated. Time and task-focused items had lower scores (indicating more negative perceptions), whereas knowledge and capability of how to provide resident- and relationship-centred mealtime care had higher scores. Exploratory factor analysis identified three factors; four items were eliminated based on this analysis. Test-retest reliability was completed with 103 participants. Intraclass correlation (ICC) for the total score and three subscales ranged from 0.72 -0.85 while Chronbach's alpha ranged from 0.81-0.92. The 19-item TMEQ is considered reliable for use in research and practice.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".