Measuring Health Status in Long-Term Residential Care: Adapting the Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12©)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Measuring the perceived mental and physical health status of older adults living in long-term residential care (LTRC) is central to patient-centered care. This study examined the qualitative content validity of the Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) for LTRC and, based on the findings, the authors developed an adapted version of the generic patient-reported outcome measure for this population.Methods: Content validity was evaluated in two steps: (1) initial resident feedback (n = 9) and research team consensus discussions and (2) cognitive interviews with residents (n = 18) and a research team consensus discussion. The cognitive interviews examined comprehension, acceptability, and relevance of the VR-12 items.Results: Two VR-12 items had limited acceptability in the LTRC setting, the reference to “work” in items was irrelevant to residents, and the lack of a frame of reference (“During the past week … ”) impacted comprehension of several items.Conclusions: Study findings informed the development of an adapted version of the VR-12 for older adults living in Canadian LTRC homes and provided content validity evidence regarding its relevance and appropriateness for this population.Clinical implications: Measuring the health status of older adults living in LTRC can help to monitor changes in health status over time and support person-centered care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".