VALIDATING THE RESIDENT VIEW: RESIDENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT PERSON-DIRECTED CARE IN NURSING HOMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Person-directed care (PDC) presumes individuals are the primary decision makers for all aspects of their lives, regardless of their living situations and abilities. Knowing what is important to a resident is essential for providing PDC support. The Resident VIEW (Voicing Importance, Experience, and Well-being) is a measure to learn directly from residents what is important to them and what they actually experience. This poster presents results of validation research conducted with a random sample of residents living in 32 randomly selected Oregon nursing homes stratified by number of survey deficiencies, rural/urban setting, and profit/nonprofit status. Interviews were completed with 253 residents: 59% female, 93% non-Hispanic white, 47% seventy-five and older, 69% long-stay, and 42% with private rooms. First, various goodness-of-fit indices from confirmatory factor analyses indicate a good fit for the original 8-factor model for the importance domains and for a revised 7-factor model for the experience domains. Second, results provide further evidence for convergent and discriminant validity through associations between domain scores and the Quality of Life Scale-Alzheimer’s Disease, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and general satisfaction. Third, residents’ experience reports on physical environment and personalized care exhibited the strongest associations with quality of life, depressive symptoms, and general satisfaction. Fourth, the large variance in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores among residents with complete interviews suggests that the Resident VIEW can be used successfully with residents with varying levels of cognitive impairment. Finally, cross-tabulations present congruence and incongruence between residents’ ratings of importance and experience for items within each domain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".