Comparison of the Moorehead‐Ardelt quality of life questionnaire and the BODY‐Q in Danish patients undergoing weight loss and body contouring surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the measurement properties of the Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire-II (MAQOL-II) and the BODY-Q, to determine which was more suitable for measuring patient-reported outcome (PRO) in Danish bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BC) patients. We examined content validity against the COSMIN guidelines and compared psychometric performance using Rasch measurement theory methods and criteria. MAQOL-II data were obtained from the Danish Bariatric Surgery Database from September 2010 to November 2017, and BODY-Q data were collected from June 2015 to March 2018. The MAQOL-II failed to meet recommended standards for content validity, while all criteria were met for the BODY-Q. A total of 16 965 MAQOL-II and 2259 BODY-Q assessments were obtained. A random sample was selected from the MAQOL-II dataset to match the BODY-Q sample. Psychometrically, the BODY-Q performed better than the MAQOL-II. For example, Cronbach's α was 0.82 for the MAQOL-II vs ≥0.90 for all BODY-Q scales. Fifty percent (3/6) of MAQOL-II items had disordered thresholds, while all BODY-Q items had ordered thresholds (123/123). Poor item fit was revealed for 17% (1/6) of MAQOL-II and 8% (10/123) of BODY-Q items. For scale reliability, person separation index was 0.79 for the MAQOL-II and 0.88 (0.81-0.93) for the BODY-Q. In conclusion, the MAQOL-II does not meet today's standards for a rigorously developed PRO measure. The BODY-Q, on the other hand, gives substantial, accurate and interpretable measurement and should be recommended for use in PRO in BS and BC patients.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it