MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200021736 · doi:10.3233/wor-213627

Rasch analysis of the firefighters’ critical incident inventory questionnaire

2021· article· en· W4200021736 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph's HospitalMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRasch modelPolytomous Rasch modelItem response theoryPsychometricsDifferential item functioningRaw score

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Critical Incident Inventory (CII) was developed to assess stressful exposures in firefighters and emergency service workers. The CII includes six subscales: trauma to self, victims known to fire-emergency worker, multiple casualties, incidents involving children, unusual or problematic tactical operations, and exposure to severe medical trauma. OBJECTIVES: To examine the construct validity of all subscales of the Critical Incident Inventory (CII) by assessing the unidimensionality of the scales, and the interval properties of CII subscales by examining fit to the Rasch model and ordering of item thresholds. METHODS: This was a secondary data analysis based on survey data collected from a sample of 390 firefighters. RESULTS: Item 4 and Item 20 were removed with the confirmation of unacceptable fit residual. This revised version of the CII showed satisfactory fit to the Rasch model by non-significant Chi-square test and acceptable level of item fit. We rescored the CII original version and considered all items as only dichotomous response options where 0 represented the original no experience, and 1 presents the combination of experiencing 1, 2, 3 cases. CONCLUSION: The re-appraisal of the revised version CII indicated a satisfactory level of Rasch model fit.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207