MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383481190 · doi:10.2196/41609

The Simplified Chinese Version of the Suitability Assessment of Materials for the Evaluation of Health-Related Information for Adults: Translation and Validation Study

2023· article· en· W4383481190 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaMainland ChinaEquivalence (formal languages)Inter-rater reliabilityContent validityPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Medical educationHealth educationApplied psychologyMedicineChinaComputer scienceMathematics educationLinguisticsNursingClinical psychologyPublic healthPsychometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Suitable health education materials can educate people about the potential harms of high-risk factors, leading to expected behavior changes and improved health outcomes. However, most patient education materials were not suitable in terms of content, structure, design, composition, and language, as stated in the literature. There is a pressing need to use well-designed scales to assess the suitability of health education materials. Although such assessment is a common practice in English-speaking communities, few assessment tools are available in mainland China. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to translate the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) for the evaluation of health-related information for adults into a simplified Chinese version (S-C-SAM) and validate its reliability for evaluating the suitability of health education materials written in simplified Chinese in mainland China. METHODS: The SAM was translated into an S-C-SAM in three steps: (1) translating the SAM into an S-C-SAM, (2) translating the S-C-SAM back into an English version, and (3) testing the translation equivalence between the 2 English versions (original and back-translated) of the SAM linguistically and culturally. Any differences between these 2 English versions were resolved through a panel discussion. The validity of the S-C-SAM was determined by measuring its content validity index. The final version of the S-C-SAM was used by 3 native Chinese-speaking health educators to assess 15 air pollution-related health education materials. The Cohen κ coefficient and Cronbach α were calculated to determine the interrater agreement and internal consistency of the S-C-SAM. RESULTS: We agreed on the final version of the S-C-SAM after settling the discrepancies between the 2 English versions (original and back-translated) and revising 2 items (sentences) rated negatively in content validation. The S-C-SAM was proven valid and reliable: the content validity index was 0.95 both in clarity and in relevance, the Cohen κ coefficient for the interrater agreement was 0.61 (P<.05), and Cronbach α for the internal consistency of the whole scale was .71. CONCLUSIONS: The S-C-SAM is the first simplified Chinese version of the SAM. It has been proven valid and reliable for evaluating the suitability of air pollution-related health education materials written in simplified Chinese in mainland China. It has the potential to be used for assessing the suitability of health education materials specifically selected for other health education purposes.

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.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.317 · 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