Applying Behaviour Change Models to Policymaking: Development and Validation of the Policymakers’ Information Use Questionnaire (POLIQ)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Policymakers’ Information Use Questionnaire (POLIQ) to capture the intention of individuals in decision-making position, such as health policymakers, to act on research-based evidence, in order to inform theory and the application of behaviour change models to decision-making. MethodsThe development and validation comprised three steps: item generation, qualitative face validation, and factorial construct validation. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to estimate item-domain correlations for five pre-defined constructs relating to content, beliefs, behaviour, control and intent. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated to assess overall consistency of questionnaire items with the pre-defined constructs. Participants in the item generation and face validation were health and policy researchers and two former decision-makers (former assistant deputy ministries) from Canadian provincial level. Participants in the construct validation were 39 Canadian decision-makers at various positions of municipal, provincial, and federal jurisdiction who participated in a series of policy dialogues focused on childhood disability research. ResultsInternal consistency of items belonging to the respective questionnaire domains was moderate to high with estimated Cronbach’s α values ranging from 0.67 to 0.84. Estimated item-domain correlations indicated moderate to high measurement performance for the domains norm, control and beliefs, whereas weak to moderate correlations resulted for the constructs content and intent. Estimate imprecisions of factor loadings (95% confidence interval widths) were considerable for the questionnaire domains content and intent. ConclusionThe study findings provide initial evidence on face validity and appropriate measurement properties of the POLIQ based on a convenient sample of decision-makers in social and health policy. Larger validation studies in relevant populations are needed to further establish psychometric properties and utility of the POLIQ.
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 | 0.085 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".