Development and validation of a Religious and Spiritual Support Scale in Sri Lanka: A psychometric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Religious and spiritual support reduces distress in patients with cancer. Accurate and reliable data on religious and spiritual support received and perceived by patients with cancer would assist health authorities in planning health promotion strategies targeted at patients with cancer. In this study, a new measurement tool of religious and spiritual support for patients with cancer in Sri Lanka was developed and validated. Methods: A new tool, the Religious and Spiritual Support Scale (RSSS) was developed based on the previous questionnaire and evaluated using 40 patients with cancer. Cross-cultural adaptation was made using WHO guidelines. Reliability was checked using Cronbach’s alpha. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to examine the test-retest reliability of the tool. Convergent and divergent validity of the tool was examined using the World Health Organization-Quality of Life-Brief scale (WHOQOL-BREF) and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scale (CES-D). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to test the construct validity of the RSSS. Results: The RSSS showed a high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha-0.874). The test-retest reliability of the scale was good (ICC = 0.981). As expected, the overall RSSS score correlated negatively with CES-D (r= - 0.338, p<0.05) and positively with overall QoL scores of the WHOQOL-BREF; (r=0.421, p<0.001), confirming satisfactory divergent and convergent validity of the RSSS. EFA revealed a structure comprised of two factors: Religious practice and religious support. Conclusions: The RSSS is a reliable and valid scale to assess religious and spiritual support received and perceived by patients with cancer in Sri Lanka.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".