CREATION AND CONTENT VALIDITY OF 5R-MEDSAFE: ASSESSING ADHERENCE TO THE SAFE DRUG ADMINISTRATION “FIVE RIGHTS”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: to present the creation and content validity stages of a questionnaire to assess the determinants of adherence to the safe drug administration five “rights” “x”, based on the Theory of Planned Behavior integrative model. Method: a methodological study to create and validate a self-reported measuring instrument for psychosocial variables. It took place in two public university teaching hospitals: one located in the South and the other in the Southeast of Brazil. Results: the results were organized according to each stage of the 5R-MEDSAFE content validation process. Conclusion: the results obtained in this creation and content validation study of the 5R-MEDSAFE indicated that the tool presented diverse content validity evidence. Its application can be useful in different contexts as a way of assessing adherence to these behaviors among Nursing workers. This will make it possible to identify which elements of the behaviors are amenable to intervention, as well as to implement the most appropriate intervention, according to the Theory of Planned Behavior constructs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".