Content validity for dementia of three generic preference based health related quality of life instruments
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
The three-model screen
all 1,000 screened works →1 of 3 models called this metaresearch. This work is contested: it sits on the field's empirical boundary, and whether it counts depends on which model you asked. It is one of the 51 works in the disagreement dossier.
Assesses the content validity of three generic preference-based health-related quality of life instruments for dementia; the object is the measurement instruments that research and evaluation rely on, i.e., a research method and its properties, though a reasonable coder could read this as clinical measurement.
The work evaluates health-related quality-of-life instruments for dementia rather than research practice.
Psychometric content validity of QoL instruments for dementia patients is clinical measurement work, not metaresearch.
Abstract
No abstract. This is not a gap in this database — OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.
The record
- Venue
- Quality of Life Research
- Topic
- Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Field
- Economics, Econometrics and Finance
- Canadian institutions
- University of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health NetworkBaycrest Hospital
- Funders
- —
- Keywords
- RespondentQuality of life (healthcare)DementiaScale (ratio)Quality of Life ResearchPsychologyQuality (philosophy)GerontologyPreferencePublic healthEQ-5DContent validityApplied psychologyPsychometricsMedicineClinical psychologyHealth related quality of lifeStatisticsNursingDiseaseMathematics
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- no