Factor structures of the Swedish Version of the RFIPC: Investigating the Validity of Measurements of IBD Patients’ Worries and Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worries and concerns of patients with IBD comprise an important negative factor in their HRQOL. The Rating Form of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patient Concerns (RFIPC) was developed to describe the nature and degree of the worries and concerns of IBD patients. In the original version, the specific issues of worries are divided into four separate factors. These factors provide useful information about HRQOL and the kind of worries and concerns which are most important to the patient. However, the Swedish version of the RFIPC is often scored using a single sum score, implying that all the specific issues of worries stem from a single general worry factor. The aim of this study was to validate the factor structure of the Swedish version of the RFIPC. METHODS: A sample consisting of 195 patients with IBD filled out the RFIPC. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine fit of three hypothesized models of factor structure. Spearman's correlation and Mann-Whitney analysis were used to follow up the results. RESULTS: The single-factor model displayed poor fit indices. The four-factor model marked substantive improvement, but still remains inadequate. The final four-factor model permitting correlated error terms between some items displayed the most adequate fit. CONCLUSIONS: The factorial structure of the RFIPC, as suggested in the original version, was able to be replicated with a slight modification in the Swedish version. The separate factors identified in this structure provide more detailed information about the worries and concerns of IBD patients as these components of worries are different related to HRQOL and general health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".