Psychometric evaluation and feasibility of the Persian-Relative Mastery Scale in the caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the validity, reliability, and feasibility of the Persian version of the Relative Mastery Scale as a measure of the Occupational Adaptation Model in caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis. Method: In a cross-sectional study, after translation, face and content validity, the caregivers completed the Relative Mastery Scale and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Expanded Disability Status Scale for people with multiple sclerosis was reported by neurologist. Also, convergent validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and exploratory factor analyses were evaluated. Results: A total of 150 caregivers completed both instruments. Cronbach’s α = 0.852 and ICC = 0.838 were good. The convergent validity of the total Relative Mastery Scale score was confirmed with a significant correlation with Canadian Occupational Performance Measure ( r > 0.67, p < 0.001) and Expanded Disability Status Scale score ( r > 0.34, p < 0.001). The Persian-Relative Mastery Scale was found as a multidimensional instrument with three items that appeared to be redundant. Conclusion: The Persian-Relative Mastery Scale had acceptable reliability and validity for evaluating mastery in Persian-speaker caregivers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".