Responsiveness and Minimum Important Differences for the Erection Quality Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the responsiveness and treatment sensitivity of the Erection Quality Scale, and provided further psychometric validation of this scale. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 8-week, placebo controlled, randomized clinical trial investigating the efficacy and safety of vardenafil in patients with erectile dysfunction was performed. The Erection Quality Scale, together with a number of other patient and partner questionnaires, was administered at a screening visit, at baseline, and weeks 4 and 8 of treatment. Erection Quality Scale responsiveness was investigated by evaluating treatment induced changes and modeling using ANCOVA. Internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and minimum important difference of the Erection Quality Scale were also assessed. RESULTS: Efficacy evaluations demonstrated that the Erection Quality Scale was sufficiently responsive to differentiate the treatment benefits of vardenafil compared with placebo. Internal consistency for the Erection Quality Scale total score was similar across visits, with values high enough to suggest reliability of items included in the scale. Discriminant validity of the Erection Quality Scale total score was demonstrated, with a high correlation with the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (0.88, p <0.0001) and negligible correlations with clinical measures assumed to be unrelated to erection quality. All Erection Quality Scale total score comparisons substantially exceeded the 5-point minimum important difference estimate. CONCLUSIONS: The Erection Quality Scale was responsive and internally consistent, and demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity. Furthermore, this instrument provided a unique contribution to the measurement of erection quality compared to the International Index of Erectile Function. This study provides strong evidence supporting the use of the Erection Quality Scale in clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".