Assessing patient report of function: content validity of the Functional Performance Inventory-Short Form (FPI-SF) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The performance of daily activities is a major challenge for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Functional Performance Inventory (FPI) was developed based on an analytical framework of functional status and qualitative interviews with COPD patients describing these difficulties. The 65-item FPI was reduced to a 32-item short form (SF) through a systematic process of qualitative and quantitative item reduction and formatted for greater clarity and ease of use. This study examined the content validity of the reduced, reformatted form of the instrument, the FPI-SF. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Qualitative cognitive interviews were conducted with COPD patients recruited from three geographically diverse pulmonary clinics in the United States. Interviews were designed to assess respondent interpretation of the instrument, evaluate clarity and ease of completion, and identify any new activities participants found important and difficult to perform that were not represented by the existing items. RESULTS: Twenty subjects comprised the sample; 12 (60%) were male, 14 (70%) were Caucasian, the mean age was 63.0 ± 11.3 years, 12 (60%) were retired, the mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) was 1.5 ± 0.5 L, and the mean percent predicted FEV(1) was 48.4% ± 13.1%. Participants understood the FPI-SF as intended, including instructions, items, and response options. Two minor formatting changes were suggested to improve clarity of presentation. Participants found the content of the FPI-SF to be comprehensive, with items covering activities they felt were important and often difficult to perform. CONCLUSION: These results, together with its development history and previously tested quantitative properties, suggest that the FPI-SF is content valid for use in clinical studies of COPD.
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 | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".