Does self‐weighting of items enhance the performance of an oral health‐related quality of life questionnaire?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: To determine if self-weighting of the items in an oral health-related quality of life questionnaire improves its psychometric properties. METHODS: The Surgical Orthodontic Outcome Questionnaire (SOOQ) was designed to assess the oral health-related quality of life of individuals before and after corrective surgery. Each of its 33 'items' consists of two questions: a question concerning the frequency with which a given functional or psychosocial problem had been experienced and a 'weighting' question which asked about how much the individual was bothered by that problem. The questionnaire was completed by three groups of individuals: (i) pretreatment; (ii) immediate (i.e. 2-6 months) postsurgery and (iii) postsurgery (i.e. more than 2 years after surgery). Unweighted scale scores were obtained by summing the response codes to the frequency question and weighted scores by summing the products of the frequency and bother questions. These scores were calculated for the full questionnaire and a short form consisting of 15 items. The discriminative and correlational construct validity of these scores was compared along with internal consistency reliability. The sensitivity to change and longitudinal construct validity of unweighted and weighted scores was assessed in a simulated evaluative study in which pretreatment and postsurgery subjects were paired. RESULTS: For both the long and short forms of the questionnaire, unweighted and weighted scores discriminated between the groups enrolled in the study. Correlations with a general health rating were similar, as were Cronbach's alpha values and test-retest reliabilities. The simulated evaluative study suggested no differences in sensitivity to change or longitudinal construct validity. When subscale scores were examined, there was a suggestion that weighting improved their reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Self-weighting of items did not substantially improve the performance of the SOOQ. Domain weights should be developed and tested to determine if they have an effect on its properties.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».