MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162746574 · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-33

Assessment of health-related quality of life in arthritis: conceptualization and development of five item banks using item response theory

2006· article· en· W2162746574 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacek A. Kopec, Eric C. Sayre, Aileen M. Davis, Elizabeth M. Badley, Michał Abrahamowicz, Lesley Sherlock, Jack I. Williams, Aslam H. Anis, John M. Esdaile

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityMcGill UniversityArthritis Research Centre of Canada
FundersCanadian Arthritis NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoMichael Smith Health Research BCMcGill University
KeywordsConceptualizationItem response theoryQuality of life (healthcare)Quality of Life ResearchPsychometricsHealth related quality of lifePsychologyItem bankArthritisMEDLINEClinical psychologyMedicineGerontologyPublic healthPsychotherapistComputer scienceInternal medicineNursingArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Modern psychometric methods based on item response theory (IRT) can be used to develop adaptive measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL). Adaptive assessment requires an item bank for each domain of HRQL. The purpose of this study was to develop item banks for five domains of HRQL relevant to arthritis. METHODS: About 1,400 items were drawn from published questionnaires or developed from focus groups and individual interviews and classified into 19 domains of HRQL. We selected the following 5 domains relevant to arthritis and related conditions: Daily Activities, Walking, Handling Objects, Pain or Discomfort, and Feelings. Based on conceptual criteria and pilot testing, 219 items were selected for further testing. A questionnaire was mailed to patients from two hospital-based clinics and a stratified random community sample. Dimensionality of the domains was assessed through factor analysis. Items were analyzed with the Generalized Partial Credit Model as implemented in Parscale. We used graphical methods and a chi-square test to assess item fit. Differential item functioning was investigated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 888 individuals with arthritis. The five domains were sufficiently unidimensional for an IRT-based analysis. Thirty-one items were deleted due to lack of fit or differential item functioning. Daily Activities had the narrowest range for the item location parameter (-2.24 to 0.55) and Handling Objects had the widest range (-1.70 to 2.27). The mean (median) slope parameter for the items ranged from 1.15 (1.07) in Feelings to 1.73 (1.75) in Walking. The final item banks are comprised of 31-45 items each. CONCLUSION: We have developed IRT-based item banks to measure HRQL in 5 domains relevant to arthritis. The items in the final item banks provide adequate psychometric information for a wide range of functional levels in each domain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.585
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.039 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and Quality of Life OutcomesSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207