The Reliability and Validity of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales: Validation in Relation to Patient Derived Measures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Health of Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) was developed to assess mental health outcomes. The aim of the studies is to examine the psychometric properties, reliability and validity of the HoNOS. METHOD: Three studies were conducted within St John of God Hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. They examined the reliability and the validity of the HoNOS. The first study examined the interrater reliability of the HoNOS, before and after staff training in the use of the HoNOS. The second study examined the validity of the HoNOS with the Symptom Checklist 90 Revised (SCL90-R) and the third study examined the validity of the HoNOS with the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). RESULTS: The first study showed an improvement in the interrater reliability (IRR) of the HoNOS due to training. However, a generally unsatisfactory IRR (range 0.50-0.65) was achieved. The second study found no correlation between the SCL90-R and the HoNOS on admission (r = 0.04) and discharge (r = 0.06). The third study found no significant correlation between the Mental Component Score of the SF-36 and the HoNOS on admission (r = -0.033) nor on discharge (r = -0.104). CONCLUSIONS: The HoNOS has at best moderate interrater reliabilities. Further, the validity of the HoNOS is under question, that is, it does not correlate with a major measure of mental health symptoms, nor with a major measure of health status. As such, it is concluded that the psychometric properties of the HoNOS do not warrant its use as a routine measure.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it