Validation of the Greek version of the Family Problem Solving Communication Scale (FPSC) in breast cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family plays a vital role in supporting breast cancer patients. Recent studies have shown that increasing family resilience empowers family support for patients. The study aims to validate the Family Problem Solving Communication (FPSC) scale in breast cancer patients in the Greek population. A factor analysis was performed, and convergent validity and reliability were tested through Cronbach alpha, Split-Half reliability, Spearman-Brown Coefficient, and Guttman Split-Half Coefficient. According to the factor analysis, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity coefficient (Chi-Square = 439.105, p = 0.000) showed that it has statistically significant correlations between items and the KMO index was 0. 860. The Cronbach α coefficient was 0.78, the Spearman-Brown coefficient was 0.603 and the Guttman Split-Half coefficient was 0.596. Finally, there was a correlation of the scale with FAD (r=0.328, F-COPES (r=0.290), and ECR-R (r=–0.424). The FPSC scale demonstrates satisfactory psychometric properties and is a suitable and useful psychometric instrument for investigating family resilience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".