MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793999919 · doi:10.2196/formative.8202

A Computer-Assisted Personal Interview App in Research Electronic Data Capture for Administering Time Trade-off Surveys (REDCap): Development and Pretest

2018· article· en· W2793999919 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mark Oremus, Anis Sharafoddini, Gian Paolo Morgano, Xuejing Jin, Feng Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamilton Health SciencesImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsElectronic data captureAutomatic identification and data captureComputer sciencePsychologyMedical educationData collectionMedicineStatisticsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The time trade-off (TTO) task is a method of eliciting health utility scores, which range from 0 (equivalent to death) to 1 (equivalent to perfect health). These scores numerically represent a person's health-related quality of life. Software apps exist to administer the TTO task; however, most of these apps are poorly documented and unavailable to researchers. OBJECTIVE: To fill the void, we developed an online app to administer the TTO task for a research study that is examining general public proxy health-related quality of life estimates for persons with Alzheimer's disease. This manuscript describes the development and pretest of the app. METHODS: We used Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to build the TTO app. The app's modular structure and REDCap's object-oriented environment facilitated development. After the TTO app was built, we recruited a purposive sample of 11 members of the general public to pretest its functionality and ease of use. RESULTS: Feedback from the pretest group was positive. Minor modifications included clarity enhancements, such as rearranging some paragraph text into bullet points, labeling the app to delineate different question sections, and revising or deleting text. We also added a research question to enable the identification of respondents who know someone with Alzheimer's disease. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an online app to administer the TTO task. Other researchers may access and customize the app for their own research purposes.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.018

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 head0.677
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.123 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207