Reliability and construct validity of the Instrument to Measure the Impact of Valve Heart Disease on the Patient's Daily Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: evaluate the practicality, acceptability and the floor and ceiling effects, estimate the reliability and verify the convergent construct's validity with the instrument called the Heart Valve Disease Impact on daily life (IDCV) of the valve disease in patients with mitral and or aortic heart valve disease. Method: data was obtained from 86 heart valve disease patients through 3 phases: a face to face interview for a socio-demographic and clinic characterization and then other two done through phone calls of the interviewed patients for application of the instrument (test and repeat test). Results: as for the practicality and acceptability, the instrument was applied with an average time of 9,9 minutes and with 110% of responses, respectively. Ceiling and floor effects observed for all domains, especially floor effect. Reliability was tested using the test - repeating pattern to give evidence of temporal stability of the measurement. Significant negative correlations with moderate to strong magnitude were found between the score of the generic question about the impact of the disease and the scores of IDCV, which points to the validity of the instrument convergent construct. Conclusion: the instrument to measure the impact of valve heart disease on the patient's daily life showed evidence of reliability and validity when applied to patients with heart valve disease.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".