ArticleWestern journal of nursing research2024
Cognitive Interview Validation of a Novel Household Hazard Vulnerability Assessment Instrument.
Article in Western journal of nursing research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing Machine Learning Explainability of Disaster Preparedness Models from the FEMA National Household Survey to Inform Tailored Population Health Interventions.Population health management · 2025Article
- Tailoring Household Disaster Preparedness Interventions to Reduce Health Disparities: Nursing Implications from Machine Learning Importance Features from the 2018-2020 FEMA National Household Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Continuing Education Certificate in Trauma Skills Among Emergency Nurses: A National Sample Survey Analysis.Journal of trauma nursing : the official journal of the Society of Trauma NursesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWeather and climate disasters are responsible for over 13 000 US deaths, worsened morbidity, and $1.7 trillion in additional costs over the last 40 years with profound racial disparities.
objectivesThis project empirically generated items for a novel survey instrument of household hazard vulnerability with initial construct validation while addressing racial bias in the data collection process.
methodsCognitive interviews facilitated understanding regarding the performance of drafted survey questions with transdisciplinary expert panelists from diverse US regions on unique hazard/disaster/event items. To prevent representation bias in data collection, those with Black and/or African American racial, biracial, or multiracial identities were over-sampled. Interview video recordings were qualitatively analyzed using thematic and pattern coding.
resultsA cognitive process mapped to themes of disaster characteristics, resources, individual life facets, and felt effects was revealed. We identified 379 unique instances of linked terms as synonyms, co-occurring, compounding, or cascading events. Potential for racial bias in data collection was elucidated. Analysis of radiation exposure, trauma, and criminal acts of intent items revealed participants may not interpret survey items with these terms as intended.
conclusionPotential for racial bias exists relative to water dam failure, evacuation, external flood, suspicious packages/substances, and transportation failure. Hazard terms that were not interpreted as intended require further revision in the validation process of individual or household disaster vulnerability assessments. Several commonalities in the cognitive process and mapping of disaster terms may be utilized in disaster and climate change research aimed at the individual and household unit of analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.