Development of Life-Worldly Communication Scale for Older Persons: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Our prior study revealed that the speech duration of older people in long-term care facilities in Japan is four minutes in one day, owing to the lack of “life-worldly communications.” This study is a pilot study for the development and validation of the Life-Worldly Communication Scale (LWCS) that can efficiently measure the life-worldly communication duration of older people. Methods: The subjects were 65 individuals, 65 years of age or older, who were chosen among people living in long-term care facilities and in home care in Japan. The items of LWCS were generated from related literature. The content validity of LWCS was examined from the content validity ratio. Construct validity of LWCS was verified by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Convergent or discriminant validity was examined from the relation between LWCS and the life-worldly communication time or depression level. Reliability was examined by inspecting internal consistency and stability. Results: The LWCS proved satisfactory in the goodness-of-fit index (GFI = .92, NFI = .91, CFI = .99, RMSEA =.03) by confirmatory factor analysis. Convergent validity of LWCS was supported by a significant correlation between LWCS and the life-worldly communication time (r = .62, P <.001). Reliability of LWCS was confirmed by internal consistency (Cronbach’s α =. 90) and stability (test-retest, r =.70, p <. 01). Conclusions: The reliability and validity of the LWCS were confirmed in the study population. However, the number of items included in each factor was insufficient. Efforts to improve LWCS are needed in the future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".