Validation of the Diabetes Attitude Scale on a sample of Quebec health-care professionals / by Marie Nicole Kandalaft.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following study aimed to: (1) compose a French version ofAnderson \net al.'s (1989) original Diabetes Attitude Scale (DAS) by sampling 5 groups of \nQuebec health care professionals; (2) increase the reliability and validity ofthe \nDAS (Anderson et al., 1989) through the creation ofa revised version ofthis \ninstrument. \nThis scale, entitled the revised Diabetes Attitude Scale (DAS-R), was \ndeveloped through the efforts of a panel of 6 diabetes educators from Notre Dame \nHospital, Montreal, Quebec. Thirty-eight items, thirty-one of these with \nCronbach alphas greater than 0.37, were selected from the original DAS (1989) \nand combined with 27 items that had been created by members of the panel to \nform a 65-item scale. The items were revised by the panel and those deemed to \nbe redundant or to increase scale variability were dropped. A total of fifteen \nitems were dropped, and the final version of the scale contained 50 questions. \nThe 50 -item scale was then mailed to 478 health care professionals, nurses, \ndietitians, physicians, pharmacists, and psychologists (specialists and \nnonspecialists in diabetes care) in all regions of Quebec. Four-hundred additional \nsurveys were distributed to health care professionals through Quebec Diabetes \nAssociation conferences. \nThe surveys were returned by 62 nurses, 49 dietitians, 149 physicians, 55 \npharmacists, and 5 psychologists, totaling 320 returns (a return rate of 36%). The \nreturned surveys were analyzed, and a 37-item DAS-R composed of 8 subscales resulted. Evidence for the reliability and validity ofthe 37-item DAS-R are \nincluded in this study. \nThe Diabetes Behaviour Scale (DBS) was created to provide evidence for \nthe validity of the DAS-R. This 13-item scale was developed specifically to \naccompany the DAS-R and is a measure ofdiabetes management-related \nbehaviours applicable to physicians. The development ofthe DBS was based on \ninformation obtained from specialized texts in diabetes care and opinions from a \nspecialist in diabetes care and education (Notre Dame Hospital, Montreal). The \nscale is comprised of questions based on various behavioural issues appropriate to \ndiabetes care (i.e. are patients referred to cardiologists, ophthalmologists when \nrequired? Does the physician attend diabetes workshops, seminars? Are patients \nreferred to outpatient education clinics?). An item analysis ofthe scale revealed \nthat 7 items had poor item-total correlations. These were dropped from further \nanalyses. The resulting 6-item scale had a satisfactory Cronbach alpha value \n(alpha= .48). \nAnalyses of the results showed that there were significant correlations \nbetween two ofthe DAS-R subscales and the DBS. This is the first time in \ndiabetes care research that an attempt at discovering a correlation between \nattitudes and behaviours has been accomplished using scales derived specifically \nfor their measurement. The relationship between attitudes and behaviours found \nin this study supports Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned action.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".