The development and test re-test reliability of a work-related asthma screening questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Work-related asthma (WRA) is under-recognized and delays in recognition contribute to long-term morbidity. The objective of the project was to develop a WRA screening questionnaire for use by primary care providers in the assessment of individuals with asthma, and to evaluate the respondent burden, test re-test reliability and face validity of the questionnaire. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken and an expert advisory committee was convened. A questionnaire was drafted and assessed for feasibility of use and content validity. The study enrolled patients with asthma attending outpatient clinics and an asthma education center. Participants were asked to respond to the questionnaire on two occasions, and comment on the content (face validity) and ease of completion (respondent burden). Ethics approval was obtained from an institutional review board. RESULTS: A 14-item self-administered screening questionnaire was created. Thirty-nine participants were recruited, and 26 participants completed a second administration of the questionnaire. The items on the relation of asthma symptoms to work demonstrated substantial agreement between testings. The workplace exposures items were found to have good reproducibility. The majority of participants denied that items were repetitive, not useful or difficult to understand. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a WRA screening questionnaire designed to aid primary care providers in the recognition of possible WRA. The tool exhibited content and face validity, good test re-test reliability and low respondent burden. Participant feedback is being considered in revisions of the questionnaire.
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 | 0.064 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".