MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912983241 · doi:10.5114/wo.2018.82645

Measuring the quality of life of people with life-threatening illnesses: the internal structure of the Polish adaptation of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire – Revised

2018· article· en· W2912983241 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Radosław Rybarski, Beata Zarzycka, Arkadiusz Bernat

Bibliographic record

VenueWspółczesna Onkologia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)Construct validityConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Adaptation (eye)PsychometricsMedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyStructural equation modelingNursingStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM OF THE STUDY: revised the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire and improved its psychometric properties and length. The aim of the present study was to adapt the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire - Revised (MQOL-R) into Polish. The study assessed the factorial structure, reliability, and validity of the Polish adaptation of the MQOL-R. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study had a non-randomised, cross-sectional design. The Polish translation of the MQOL-R was administered to 140 people with life-threatening illnesses. Patients were recruited from acute and palliative care units. Data were analysed using confirmatory factor analysis, and correlational and multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: The results provide support for the measurement structure of the Polish adaptation of the MQOL-R. Both the overall scale and four subscales have satisfactory internal consistency and the construct and concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Polish MQOL-R is psychometrically sound and may serve as a valuable asset in research on quality of life of people with life-threatening illnesses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWspółczesna OnkologiaSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207