MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

e10 Moderate to good construct validity of global presenteeism measures with multi-item presenteeism measure and patient-reported health outcomes

2018· article· en· W2799498076 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Leggett, Annelies Boonen, Diane Lacaille, Suzanne Verstappen

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsArthritis Research Centre of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresenteeismMedicineMeasure (data warehouse)Construct validityConstruct (python library)PsychometricsClinical psychologyAbsenteeismSocial psychologyData miningPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Inflammatory arthritis (IA) and osteoarthritis (OA) often impact on the worker's performance whilst at work due to ill health (i.e. presenteeism). The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between four global measures of presenteeism and to evaluate the construct validity of these measures. Methods: In this large international observational study (seven countries in Europe and Canada), recruiting patients with IA (RA, PsA or AS) or OA in paid employment, we evaluated the content and construct validity of four global presenteeism measures: Work Productivity Scale-Arthritis (WPS-A), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Work Ability Index (WAI), and both the Quality and Quantity scales of the QQ questionnaire) (Table 1). Spearman correlations were applied to test the correlation between individual presenteeism scales and to test construct validity with the 11-item Workplace Activity Limitation presenteeism Scale (WALS) and several patient reported outcome (PROs) measures. Interpretation of correlation coefficients: (very) weak (range=0.0-0.39), moderate (range=0.40-0.59) to strong (range=0.60-1.0).

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.112 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207