Validation of the Danish version of the McGill Ingestive Skills Assessment using classical test theory and the Rasch model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aimed to validate the Danish version of the Canadian the "McGill Ingestive Skills Assessment" (MISA-DK) for measuring dysphagia in frail elders. METHOD: One-hundred and ten consecutive older medical patients were recruited to the study. Reliability was assessed by internal consistency (Chronbach's alpha). External construct validity (convergent and known-groups validity) was evaluated against theoretical constructs assessing the complex concept of ingestive skills. Internal construct validity was tested using Rasch analysis. RESULTS: High internal consistency reliability with Chronbach's alpha of 0.77-0.95 was evident. External construct validity was supported by expected high correlations with most of the constructs related to ingestive skills (r(s) = 0.53 to r(s) = 0.66). The MISA-DK discriminated significantly between known-groups. Fit to the Rasch model (x(2) (df) = 12 (12), p = 0.424) and unidimensionality of the MISA-DK was confirmed after resolving disordered thresholds for 11 items and adjustment of local dependency. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of the MISA-DK equal the original Canadian version. Assessment of internal construct validity indicated multidimensionality due to local dependency. Although achieving good fit to the Rasch model after adjustments, additional studies are needed to establish cross-cultural validity. Finally, establishment of the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the MISA-DK is also needed.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".