Responsiveness of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire (Spanish Version) in a General Working Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the responsiveness of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire (Spanish version) (WRFQ-SpV) so that it could be used in evaluative studies. METHODS: A longitudinal survey was performed. Combinations of distribution- and anchor-based approaches were used. Five hypotheses were tested, examining validity of change scores. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments (COSMIN) guided the study design. RESULTS: One hundred two participants (mean age, 47.3 years; SD = 10.3 years) completed the WRFQ-SpV twice, within a mean interval of 3.7 (SD = 1.8) months. Four hypotheses were confirmed and one was rejected. It was verified that the WRFQ-SpV was able to detect (true) changes over time. CONCLUSION: Suggestive evidence about the possible use of the WRFQ-SpV with evaluative purposes was provided. More research is needed to examine the instrument responsiveness for groups whose health is stable or deteriorates.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".