Psychometric properties of dementia attitudes scale, dementia knowledge assessment tool 2 and confidence in dementia scale in a Greek sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Τo validate the Greek version of the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool 2, the Dementia Attitudes Scale and Confidence in Dementia Scale. Design: A quantitative cross-sectional design was applied for translation and validation. The STROBE checklist for observational research has been followed to this survey. Method: Two hundred and twelve students from the School of Psychology (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki). Psychometric properties were assessed through construct validity (principal component analysis), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and convergent validity. Results: High internal reliability was found for Confidence in Dementia Scale (α = 0.85), adequate reliability for Dementia Attitudes Scale (α = 0.74) and acceptable reliability for Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool 2 (α = 0.68). Construct validity was satisfactory for Dementia Attitudes Scale (two factors: social comfort and knowledge). The convergent validity was supported to this survey. All three tools are reliable and valid to measure knowledge, confidence and attitudes towards dementia in Greek research context.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".