The reliability and validity of two health status measures for evaluating outcomes of home care nursing
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
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.
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 | 0.053 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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