Psychometric properties analysis of helping relationships skills inventory for Portuguese nurses and doctors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper answered some authors' requests to analyze the Helping Relationships Skills Inventory psychometric properties, a four dimensions measure. At this level, the study contributed to accessing the first reliable and valid instrument headed to Portuguese nurses and doctors. Methods : An online survey with Portuguese nurses and doctors (n = 262) was managed to assess the psychometrics properties analysis of the Helping Relationships Skills Inventory. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis, the average variance extracted (AVE), the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT), Cronbach's Alpha, and McDonald's Omega were computed. Results: The four-factor of the original Helping Relationships Skills Inventory was only supported by Exploratory Factor Analysis, with good internal consistency. Our study accepted this correlational structure hypothesis, which demonstrated acceptable to good sensitivity, convergent validity (AVE: 0.84–0.67), and reliability (Cronbach's Alpha: 0.92–0.88; McDonald'Omega: 0.93–0.79). Also stays verified discriminant validity for the majority of the factors with some reserves between Generics and Emphatics dimensions (HTMT: 0.90), revealing high commonality among them (r = 0.84; p < .001) Conclusions: The findings support the sensitivity, construct validity, and reliability of the Helping Relationships Skills Inventory among Portuguese nurses and doctors. However, will be useful to associate qualitative methodologies to explore the phenomenon better.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".