Does participation in an intervention affect responses on self-report questionnaires?
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
There has been some concern that participation in an intervention and exposure to a measurement instrument can change participants' interpretation of the items on a self-report questionnaire thereby distorting subsequent responses and biasing results. Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis using item response modeling can ascertain possible differences in item interpretation by testing for differences in item location between groups. The DIF for treatment versus control group differences at post-intervention assessment and the Time 1 and Time 2 differences in a control group were analyzed using data from a dietary change intervention trial for Boy Scouts. The measures included fruit and vegetable (FV) frequency of consumption, preferences and self-efficacy. Treatment-control group DIF at post-intervention assessment was detected in a higher percentage of items for FV frequency than for preference or self-efficacy. Time 1 to Time 2 differences in items for the control group were detected in one item for each of the three scales. Further research will need to clarify whether the obtained DIFs reflected true changes in frequency, preference or self-efficacy or some reinterpretation of items by participants following an intervention or merely after previous exposure to the measure.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it