Evaluation of data quality of interRAI assessments in home and community care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this project is to describe the quality of assessment data regularly collected in home and community, with techniques adapted from an evaluation of the quality of long-term care data in Canada. METHODS: Data collected using the Resident Assessment Instrument - Home Care (RAI-HC) in Ontario and British Columbia (BC) as well as the interRAI Community Health Assessment (CHA) in Ontario were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's r correlation, and Cronbach's alpha in order to assess trends in population characteristics, convergent validity, and scale reliability. RESULTS: Results indicate that RAI-HC data from Ontario and BC behave in a consistent manner, with stable trends in internal consistency providing evidence of good reliability (alpha values range from 0.72-0.94, depending on the scale and province). The associations between various scales, such as those reflecting functional status and cognition, were found to be as expected and stable over time within each setting (r values range from 0.42-0.45 in Ontario and 0.41-0.43 in BC). These trends in convergent validity demonstrate that constructs in the data behave as they should, providing evidence of good data quality. In most cases, CHA data quality matches that of RAI-HC data quality and shows evidence of good validity and reliability. The findings are comparable to the findings observed in the evaluation of data from the long-term care sector. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increasingly complex client population in the home and community care sectors, the results from this work indicate that data collected using the RAI-HC and the CHA are of an overall quality that may be trusted when used to inform decision-making at the organizational- or policy-level. High quality data and information are vital when used to inform steps taken to improve quality of care and enhance quality of life. This work also provides evidence that a method used to evaluate the quality of data obtained in the long-term care setting may be used to evaluate the quality of data obtained through community-based measures.
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 | 0.361 | 0.567 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".