Spanish cultural adaptation of the avoidance questionnaire for adolescents (AQA) in undergraduate nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Questionnaires assessing psychological inflexibility exist, but Spanish versions are lacking. • Validation of the AQA in Spanish shows good consistency, reliability, and sensitivity to change. • The Spanish AQA is useful in training, detecting changes after educational interventions. The need for a validated Spanish questionnaire for nursing students focusing on psychological inflexibility, problem-solving, and reflective thinking prompted the adaptation of the Avoidance Questionnaire for Adolescents (AQA). To develop and culturally validate a Spanish version of the AQA for use with undergraduate nursing students. The AQA was culturally adapted and its psychometric properties evaluated through an online survey involving 350 first- and second-year nursing students from the University of Granada and the University of Malaga (Spain). To assess sensitivity to change, a seminar was conducted with 116 students. The highest-scoring factors were "Postponement/strengthening up" and "Mulling," indicating greater reflection on problems. In contrast, "Negative self-efficacy/insolvability" and "Neglecting" scored lowest, suggesting adequate problem-solving skills. An exploratory factor analysis showed a Cronbach's alpha of 0.766 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.874, with a good fit in the confirmatory factor analysis. The Spanish adaptation of the AQA demonstrated good internal consistency, reliability, and sensitivity to change. It is a suitable tool for educational activities in nursing students.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".