| Literature DB >> 32432557 |
Shu-Ching Ma1,2, Willy Chou3,4, Tsair-Wei Chien5, Huan-Fang Lee6, Julie Chi Chow7,8, Yu-Tsen Yeh9, Po-Hsin Chou10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workplace bullying has been measured in many studies to investigate its effects on mental health issues. However, none have used web-based computerized adaptive testing (CAT) with bully classifications and convolutional neural networks (CNN) for reporting the extent of individual bullying in the workplace.Entities:
Keywords: NAQ-R assessment; computerized adaptive testing; convolutional neural network; nurse bullying; receiver operating characteristic curve
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32432557 PMCID: PMC7270851 DOI: 10.2196/16747
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1Interpretation of the CNN algorithm in Microsoft Excel. CNN: convolutional neural network.
Figure 2The study flowchart. CNN: convolutional neural network.
Demographic data of the study sample.
| Variables | n (%) | |
|
|
| |
|
| Hospital A | 542 (56.4) |
|
| Hospital B | 323 (33.6) |
|
| Hospital C | 95 (10) |
|
|
| |
|
| Male | 38 (4) |
|
| Female | 922 (96) |
|
|
| |
|
| High school | 6 (0.6) |
|
| College | 464 (48.3) |
|
| University | 474 (49.3) |
|
| Graduate school | 16 (1.8) |
|
|
| |
|
| Unmarried | 553 (57.5) |
|
| Married | 403 (42.1) |
|
| Divorced | 4 (0.4) |
|
|
| |
|
| N0 | 34 (3.5) |
|
| N1 | 281 (29.3) |
|
| N2 | 316 (32.9) |
|
| N3 | 243 (25.3) |
|
| N4 | 86 (8.9) |
|
|
| |
|
| Nurse | 772 (80.3) |
|
| Chief | 158 (17.7) |
|
| Leader | 8 (0.8) |
|
| Others | 12 (1.2) |
Figure 3Two groups divided by the k-mean clustering. A) n=35; B) Cuttoff point set at 66 points; C) n=925.
Figure 4The bullied classes clustered with 3 categories using cut-off points to identify the sensitivity and specificity with AUC (area under the curve).
Mild and moderate scenario applied to CNN for the prediction of nurse bullying levels.
| Scenario A (22 items), ACCa=0.99, (n=947) | True condition | |||
| Positive | Negative | PPVb/FORc | FDRd/NPVe | |
| Positive | 29 | 4 | 0.88 | 0.12 |
| Negative | 0 | 914 | 0 | 1 |
| Sensitivity | 1 | —f | — | — |
| FPRg | 0.01 | — | — | — |
| FNRh (Miss rate) | 0 | — | — | — |
| Specificity | 0.99 | — | — | — |
| AUROCi (95% CI) | 0.99 (0.99-1) | — | — | — |
aACC: accuracy
bPPV: positive predictive value.
cFOR: 1-PPV.
dFDR: 1-NPV.
eNPV: negative predictive value.
fNot applicable.
gFPR: false positive rate.
hFNR: false negative rate.
iAUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Moderate and severe scenario applied to CNN for the prediction of nurse bullying levels.
| Scenario B (22 items), ACCa=0.83, (n=42) | True condition | ||||
| Positive | Negative | PPVb/FORc | FDRd/NPVe | ||
| Positive | 13 | 7 | 0.65 | 0.35 | |
| Negative | 0 | 22 | 0 | 1 | |
| Sensitivity | 1 | —f | — | — | |
| FPRg | 0.24 | — | — | — | |
| FNRh (Miss rate) | 0 | — | — | — | |
| Specificity | 0.76 | — | — | — | |
| AUROCi (95% CI) | 0.94 (0.82-0.99) | — | — | — | |
aACC: accuracy
bPPV: positive predictive value.
cFOR: 1-PPV.
dFDR: 1-NPV.
eNPV: negative predictive value.
fNot applicable.
gFPR: false positive rate.
hFNR: false negative rate.
iAUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Figure 5Snapshots on a mobile phone responding to questions (top) and the result (bottom) for assessing individual bullied levels.