Validating the Remote First Aid Self-Efficacy Scale for Use in Evaluation and Training of First Responders in Remote Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the remote first aid self-efficacy scale (RFA SES). The RFA SES is a 30-item self-report scale developed in response to emerging evidence showing that self-efficacy is predictive of performance. METHODS: Trained alumni from Wilderness Medical Associates (WMA) training courses and less trained students from Laurentian University (LU) were recruited via email to complete an online questionnaire at 2 different periods (T1 and T2). The questionnaire included demographic questions, the 30-item RFA SES, the 10-item Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC), and the 10-item generalized self-efficacy scale (GSES). Data analysis included assessment of the dimensionality, reliability, and validity of the scale. RESULTS: There were 448 alumni from WMA and 1106 students from LU who participated in the study. The RFA SES demonstrated a clear unidimensional structure. The mean interitem correlation was 0.75 at T1. Test-retest reliability (T1 to T2) was high for both the LU group (intraclass correlation [ICC]=0.90) and the WMA group (ICC=0.92). Moderate correlations were found between RFA SES and CD-RISC (r=0.42, P<0.001), a general measure of resilience, and the GSES (r=0.48, P<0.001), a general measure of self-efficacy. Wilderness Medical Associates participants showed higher mean scores than LU students at T1 (t [569]=16.2, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The RFA SES is a unidimensional, reliable, and potentially valid scale. Further research should focus on item reduction followed by additional tests of reliability and validity.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".