Development and validation of a risk perception scale for wild mushroom consumption among college students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo develop and validate a wild mushroom consumption risk perception scale for college students based on Protection motivation theory （PMT）.MethodsThe scale was developed through literature review and expert consultation， then administered to 216 college students. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses examined structural validity， while Cronbach’s α assessed internal consistency reliability. Composite reliability （CR） and average variance extracted （AVE） evaluated convergent and discriminant validity.ResultsThe final scale contained 21 items across two dimensions （threat appraisal and coping appraisal） with seven factors. Overall Cronbach’s α was 0.851， with all dimensional α coefficients >0.726. KMO value was 0.826 with significant Bartlett’s test （P<0.001）. All factors showed AVE >0.5， CR >0.75， and MSV<AVE， meeting convergent and discriminant validity requirements. The scale effectively differentiated groups with varying cognitive levels （P<0.01）.ConclusionThe PMT-based scale demonstrates good reliability and validity for assessing college students’ wild mushroom risk perception.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".