The reliability and validity of two health status measures for evaluating outcomes of home care nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Medical Outcome Study Short Form (SF-36) and the Quality of Life Profile: Senior Version (QOLPSV) for measuring outcomes of home care nursing were evaluated. Data were collected from 50 clients receiving home care nursing services. Twenty-two registered nurses and six registered practical nurses collected client and nursing data on each home visit. Client baseline and outcome measures were collected by two independent evaluators at admission and discharge from the home care service. Internal consistency reliability ranged from.76 to.94 for the eight subscales of the SF-36. Internal consistency reliability ranged from.47 to.82 for the nine subscales of the QOLPSV. The subscales of both instruments had minimal problems with missing responses. The SF-36 was found to be more sensitive than the QOLPSV to change over time. In addition, the subscales of the SF-36 were found to be more sensitive than the subscales of the QOLPSV to several of the nursing variables, such as intensity of the client's nursing condition and skill mix.
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 | 0.027 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".