Development of the QoL.BD: a disorder‐specific scale to assess quality of life in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is wide recognition that symptom ratings alone are inadequate to measure outcomes in bipolar disorder (BD), and quality of life (QoL) has been proposed as an important separable construct. Although a literature on QoL in BD exists, there is no disorder-specific measure of QoL in BD. In 2004, we embarked upon a four-year mixed-method program of research to develop such a measure that could function as an outcome tool in clinical trials of pharmacological or psychosocial treatment interventions, longitudinal monitoring, or routine clinical care. METHODS: The project was informed by standard protocols for the development of disorder-specific QoL measures. Two phases of scale development were pursued across four empirical studies. Item generation involved a qualitative investigation of individuals with BD, family members, and field experts (Study 1), as well as a literature review. Item reduction analyses were conducted using an intensive small-N design with affected individuals (Study 2), a large field sample (Study 3), and a final small-N item reduction study, again involving individuals with the disorder and field experts (Study 4). RESULTS: Initial field testing of the Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) scale supports use of the instrument as a feasible, reliable and valid disorder-specific QoL measure for BD. Internal reliability of the QoL.BD is impressive, test-retest reliability is appropriate, and the direction and magnitude of correlations with external measures are as expected. As a new instrument, the QoL.BD must be compared against existing options for measuring QoL in this population. Significantly, data suggest that the greater specificity of the QoL.BD relative to the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire renders the new instrument more sensitive to clinical change in BD. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life scales can provide important information additional to that provided by traditional assessments of outcome in BD. Our intensive, mixed-method development of the QoL.BD has produced a useful additional measure of well-being for this complex and often disabling condition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".