Development and assessment of the constipation‐related disability scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic constipation is associated with impaired quality of life and physical discomfort. Although inability to engage in day-to-day activities has been significantly associated with psychological distress, limited research has examined this relationship in constipated samples. AIM: To develop and validate the Constipation-Related Disability Scale (CRDS), which assesses the extent of disability caused by constipation. METHODS: A total of 240 constipated participants and 103 healthy controls completed the CRDS. Reliability was measured with Cronbach's coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients. Convergent, divergent and predictive validity were assessed. RESULTS: Component and factor analyses were used to derive two factors: Work/Leisure Activities and Activities of Daily Living, as well as a total CRDS score. Good reliability was found, with alphas ≥ 0.87 and intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ 0.85. All scales were negatively correlated with the physical health subscales of the SF-36 (P < 0.001) and were not significantly correlated with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Social Desirability Scale, providing support for convergent and divergent validity, respectively. Evidence of predictive validity was supported by associations between the total CRDS with number of physician visits per year (P < 0.01), missed work in the last year (odds ratio [OR = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.19, P < 0.001) and ER visits in the last year (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.00-1.16, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Constipation-Related Disability Scale is the first instrument that assesses the impact of constipation on daily activities. There is evidence of strong reliability and validity of the instrument.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".