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 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 | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".