MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283263092 · doi:10.2196/38156

Developing the Message Assessment Scale for Tobacco Prevention Campaigns: Cross-sectional Validation Study

2022· article· en· W4283263092 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica M. Rath, Siobhan N. Perks, Kenneshia N. Williams, Tracy Budnik, John Geraci, Donna Vallone, Elizabeth C. Hair

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Test (biology)ComprehensionRelevance (law)PsychologyTarget audienceCross-sectional studyApplied psychologyComputer scienceAdvertisingMedicineGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mass media campaigns are effective for influencing a broad range of health behaviors. Prior to launching a campaign, developers often conduct ad testing to help identify the strengths and weaknesses of the message executions among the campaign's target audience. This process allows for changes to be made to ads, making them more relevant to or better received by the target audience before they are finalized. To assess the effectiveness of an ad's message and execution, campaign ads are often rated using a single item or multiple items on a scale, and scores are calculated. Endorsement of a 6-item perceived message effectiveness (PME) scale, defined as the practice of using a target audience's evaluative ratings to inform message selection, is one approach commonly used to select messages for antitobacco campaigns; however, the 6-item PME scale often does not produce enough specificity to make important decisions on ad optimization. In addition, the PME scale is typically used with adult populations for smoking cessation messages. OBJECTIVE: This study includes the development of the Message Assessment Scale, a new tobacco prevention message testing scale for youth and young adults. METHODS: Data were derived from numerous cross-sectional surveys designed to test the relevance and potential efficacy of antitobacco truth campaign ads. Participants aged 15-24 years (N=6108) responded to a set of 12 core attitudinal items, including relevance (both personal and cultural) as well as comprehension of the ad's main message. RESULTS: Analyses were completed in two phases. In phase I, mean scores were calculated for each of the 12 attitudinal items by ad type, with higher scores indicating more endorsement of the item. Next, all items were submitted to exploratory factor analysis. A four-factor model fit was revealed and verified with confirmatory factor analysis, resulting in the following constructs: personally relevant, culturally relevant, the strength of messaging, and negative attributes. In phase II, ads were categorized by performance (high/medium/low), and constructs identified in phase I were correlated with key campaign outcomes (ie, main fact agreement and likelihood to vape). Phase II confirmed that the four constructs identified in phase I were all significantly correlated with main fact agreement and vape intentions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study advance the field by establishing an expanded set of validated items to comprehensively assess the potential effectiveness of advertising executions. This set of items expands the portfolio of ad testing measures for ads focused on tobacco use prevention. Findings can inform how best to optimize ad executions and message delivery for health behavior campaigns, particularly those focused on tobacco use prevention among youth and young adult populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.322
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicBehavioral Health and Interventions→French-language works237,207→