Development and validation of the nursing confidence in managing sedation complications scale
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To develop the Nursing Confidence in Managing Sedation Complications Scale. DESIGN: A multi-phased approach was used. METHODS: An initial bank of items was created based on the authors' experience and clinical practice guidelines. An expert panel assessed content validity. Exploratory factor analysis was used for item reduction and regression was used to explore construct validity. Responsiveness was evaluated using a pre-test post-test design. RESULTS: Criteria for content validity was met for 34 items. An 18-item, three-factor solution was identified from exploratory factor analysis performed using Nursing Confidence in Managing Sedation Complications Scale scores from 228 nurses. Subscales accounted for 66% of the variance. Cronbach's alpha for the scale (0.95) and subscales was high (>0.85). There were differences (p < .001) in Nursing Confidence in Managing Sedation Complications Scale scores relative to years of experience and work environment. NC-MSCS scores increased significantly from before to after sedation training (mean difference = 31.8; 95% CI = 24.4-39; N = 31).
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it