Factor structure, reliability and measurement invariance of the Alberta Context Tool and the Conceptual Research Utilization Scale, for German residential long term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We translated the Canadian residential long term care versions of the Alberta Context Tool (ACT) and the Conceptual Research Utilization (CRU) Scale into German, to study the association between organizational context factors and research utilization in German nursing homes. Both instruments are self-report questionnaires used with care providers working in nursing homes. Our aim was to assess the factor structure, reliability, and measurement invariance between care provider groups responding to these instruments. Methods In a stratified random sample of 38 nursing homes in one German region (Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar), we collected questionnaires from 273 care aides, 196 regulated nurses, 152 allied health providers, 6 quality improvement specialists, 129 clinical leaders, and 65 nursing students. The factor structure was assessed using confirmatory factor models. The first model included all ten Alberta Context Tool concepts. We also decided a priori to run two separate models for the scale-based and the count-based Alberta Tool concepts as suggested by the instrument developers. The fourth model included the five Conceptual Research Utilization Scale items. Reliability scores were calculated based on the parameters of the best-fitting factor models. Multiple-group confirmatory factor models were used to assess measurement invariance between the provider groups. Results Rather than the hypothesized ten-factor structure of the Alberta Context Tool, confirmatory factor models suggested thirt een factors. The one-factor solution of the Conceptual Research Utilization Scale was confirmed. The reliability was acceptable (> .7 in the entire sample and in all provider groups) for 10 of 13 Alberta Context Tool concepts. The reliability of the Conceptual Research Utilization Scale was high (.90 to .96). We could demonstrate partial strong measurement invariance for both Alberta Context Tool models and partial strict measurement invariance for the Conceptual Research Utilization Scale. Conclusions Our results suggest that the scores of the German ACT and the CRU Scale for nursing homes are acceptably reliable and valid. However, as the ACT lacked strict measurement invariance, observed variables (or scale scores based on them) cannot be compared between provider groups. Rather, group comparisons should be based on latent variable models, which consider the different residual variances of each group.
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 | 0.023 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".