Mcgill Empowerment Assessment-Diabetes Questionnaire: Turkish Validity and Reliability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The present study aimed to examine the Turkish validity and reliability of the McGill Empowerment Assessment-Diabetes (MEA-D) Questionnaire in individuals with diabetes. Material and Method: The present study was conducted in methodological design. This methodological study was conducted on 300 individuals diagnosed with diabetes. Personal information form and MEA-D were used to collect the data. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, item-total score correlation, and test-retest analysis were used to evaluate the data collected. Results: Factor loads of items were between 0.64-0.92. Fit index values were x²/SD 1.90, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95 RMSEA = 0.078, RMR = 0.07, and SRMR = 0.08. Sub-dimensions had Cronbach’s Alpha values between 0.92 and 0.98, while total Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.96. It was concluded that the Turkish version of the 28-item and 4 sub-dimension questionnaire was confirmed with no changes to the original form. Conclusion: Turkish version of the MEA-D is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating the empowerment status of individuals diagnosed with diabetes and for being used in clinical settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".