A self-management measurement: Validity of the Partners in Health Scale (PHS) instrument in Peruvian elderly population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Partners and Health Scale Instrument has been validated in several countries, however, it has just been applied in Spanishspeaking countries to people with chronic conditions, allowing a self-management evaluation with wide clinical application and research. It is the first time it has been applied in elderly patients (60 or older) in Spanish-speaking countries. This study shows the instrument validity in this population - users of health services of the Ministry of Health in Lima-Peru. An intentional non-probabilistic sample of 152 subjects with Construction Validity was performed: 1) Factor Analysis and 2) Confirmatory with structural equations and Reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha presents construct validity in three factors with an explained variance of 0.597. From the results of the goodness of fit model measures obtained by AMOS 24.0 and FACTOR 10.10, it can be seen that 6 of the 7 measures obtained are acceptable. The reliability with the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.845. Although the model may have high-quality goodness of fit, the possibility of another alternative model that meets a better fit cannot be rejected; the results allow us to conclude that this Instrument presents validity and reliability in the evaluation of self-management within three factors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".