Bayesian construct validation leveraging expert knowledge for questionnaire instruments used in primary care research and practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Questionnaires are widely used instruments for acquiring information on latent traits, perceptions or self-reported attributes of individuals in various practical fields and research domains including education, psychology, sociology and medicine. The development of valid and reliable questionnaire instruments is a labor-intensive process requiring iterative expert input and empirical assessment of the psychometric properties of the instrument in the target population. Bayesian methods enable the incorporation of domain expert knowledge and can increase the efficiency of the development and construct validation process, potentially saving resources, time and costs. Despite numerous methodological developments in the statistical literature, Bayesian methods for questionnaire development are still underutilized in the primary care context. This is a critical gap that likely affects both practice and research in the field, as questionnaires are important instruments for day-by-day clinical decision making and research data acquisition. OBJECTIVE: The overall objective of this Ph.D. research project was to develop an effective and feasible Bayesian inference framework for questionnaire construct validation. The developed framework employs a survey approach for eliciting domain expert input to inform the required Bayesian prior distributions. METHODS: A systematic methodological review of the literature was conducted to examine the use of Bayesian methods for construct validation in the primary care context. Informed by the findings of the review, a Bayesian inference framework was developed, aiming to overcome feasibility issues of currently available methods described in the literature. The performance of the developed inference approach was assessed in comparison to standard validation approaches using an extensive Monte-Carlo simulation study. Finally, to illustrate its performance using real-world data, the developed framework was applied for the construct validation of a recently developed instrument, the McGill Empowerment Assessment – Diabetes (MEA-D) questionnaire, measuring levels of self-care in diabetes patients. RESULTS: The systematic literature review revealed that Bayesian construct validation methods are underutilized in questionnaire development studies in the primary care literature and identified prevalent shortcomings in the justification, reporting and interpretation of the respectively applied statistical validation approaches. The assessment of the newly developed Bayesian validation framework for leveraging domain expert knowledge demonstrated sound performance even under mild misspecification of expert priors. Applying the developed framework for construct validation of the MEA-D questionnaire demonstrated feasibility and consistency with the results of the standard empirical validation, yielding higher precision in estimated factor loadings.CONCLUSION: The developed Bayesian framework for leveraging domain-expert knowledge in construct validation studies enables a more inclusive and potentially more efficient (resource-saving) approach for the development of questionnaire instruments, contributing to more equitable evidence-based practice and research in primary care and beyond
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 | 0,013 | 0,101 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».