Using specific, validated vs. non-specific, non-validated tools to measure a subjective concept: application on COVID-19 burnout scales in a working population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The first objective is to compare the psychometric properties of two scales, measuring COVID-19-related burnout in a general working population during an economic crisis. The second objective is to compare the relevance through the assessment of statistically significant associations between the independent variables and the validated (scale 1) or non-validated (scale 2) scales taken as dependent variables. Methods This study enrolled 151 Lebanese participants, using a snowball sampling method. Two scales that measure burnout during COVID-19 were used. Results A significantly strong correlation was found between the validated COVID-19 burnout scale (scale 1) and the new pandemic-related burnout scale (scale 2) (r=0.796, p<0.001). A first linear regression on scale 1 (dependent) showed that increased concern about the impact of the economic crisis and COVID-19 (Beta=9.61) was significantly associated with higher COVID-19 burnout. However, higher financial well-being (Beta=−0.23) and working as a full timer (Beta=−7.80) were significantly associated with a lower COVID-19 burnout score. A second regression model on scale 2 (dependent) showed that higher financial well-being was only significantly associated with a lower pandemic-related burnout score (Beta=−0.72). Conclusions Our results showed that more specific scales have better psychometric properties while using non-validated, non-specific scales to evaluate an outcome might lead to biased associations and incorrect conclusions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".