Échelle de fréquence des comportements préventifs au travail : analyse des propriétés métrologiques [Scale of frequency of preventive behaviors at work: Analysis of metrological properties]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude visait à évaluer les propriétés métrologiques de l’Échelle de fréquence des comportements préventifs au travail. Ce questionnaire a été conçu à partir du Modèle des Comportements Préventifs au Travail (MCPT) qui décrit la contribution des travailleurs eu égard à la prévention des lésions professionnelles via leur implication dans six types de comportements. Un devis méthodologique de développement d’outil de mesure a été utilisé pour mesurer la structure factorielle, la consistance interne et la fidélité test-retest du questionnaire. Au total, 206 travailleurs ont rempli le questionnaire en entier et 96 d’entre eux l’ont fait à nouveau environ quatre semaines plus tard. Les résultats de l’analyse factorielle exploratoire révèlent une structure à six facteurs expliquant 64,75% de la variance. De plus, les résultats de l’analyse factorielle confirmatoire entérinent le regroupement attendu des comportements selon le MCPT. L’analyse des coefficients omega de McDonald soutient une consistance interne adéquate pour les six échelles du questionnaire (ω > 0,70) et les résultats de l’analyse de fidélité test-retest montrent des indices bons (CCI : 0,76–0,89) pour chacune des échelles. Ces résultats soutiennent l’utilisation de l’échelle pour mesurer la fréquence à laquelle les travailleurs adoptent des comportements préventifs. Abstract The purpose of this study was to evaluate the metrological properties of Échelle de fréquence des comportements préventifs au travail. This questionnaire was based on the Model of Preventive Behaviours at Work (MPBW), which describes the contribution of workers to the prevention of occupational injuries through their involvement in six types of behaviour. A measurement tool development research design was used to measure the factor structure, internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the questionnaire. A total of 206 workers completed the entire questionnaire and 96 of them completed it again approximately 4 weeks later. The results of the exploratory factor analysis revealed a six-factor structure explaining 64.75% of the variance. In addition, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis support the expected clustering of behaviours according to the MPBW. McDonald’s omega coefficient analysis supported adequate internal consistency for the six scales of the questionnaire (ω?> 0.70) and the results of the test-retest reliability analysis showed good indices (ICC: 0.76–0.89) for each of the scales. These results support the use of the questionnaire to measure the frequency with which workers involve in preventive behaviours. © 2022 Canadian Psychological Association
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".