A Valid and Reliable Measure of Constipation-Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Few existing measures assess constipation-specific quality of life. This study sought to develop a valid and reliable quality-of-life measure for constipation. METHODS: First, we created a preliminary instrument that assessed quality-of-life domains affected by constipation: body image, eating, mood, and relationships with others. We conducted focus groups both with patients with constipation seeking treatment and the health care providers who treat them. Next, a 59-item questionnaire was given to 240 subjects with constipation (83% female) and 103 healthy volunteers (63% female). Test-retest reliability and discriminant, convergent, and divergent validity were assessed. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis revealed four domains: Social Impairment (five items), Distress (six items), Eating Habits (three items), and Bathroom Attitudes (four items). Internal consistency and test-retest reliability for all subscales was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.87). All domains discriminated well between subjects with constipation and healthy volunteers (P < 0.001). Convergent validity was excellent: all subscales correlated highly with the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life Scale total score (P < 0.001) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 physical component and mental component summary scores (P < 0.001). Scores from our Constipation-Related Quality of Life measure were not significantly correlated with the Social Desirability Scale, demonstrating divergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the reliability and validity of the Constipation-Related Quality of Life measure. Future validation of the Constipation-Related Quality of Life measure for assessing changes in quality of life in response to treatments for constipation is needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".