Critical examination of current response shift methods and proposal for advancing new methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This work is part of an international, interdisciplinary initiative to synthesize research on response shift in results of patient-reported outcome measures. The objective is to critically examine current response shift methods. We additionally propose advancing new methods that address the limitations of extant methods. METHODS: Based on literature reviews, this critical examination comprises design-based, qualitative, individualized, and preference-based methods, latent variable models, and other statistical methods. We critically appraised their definition, operationalization, the type of response shift they can detect, whether they can adjust for and explain response shift, their assumptions, and alternative explanations. Overall limitations requiring new methods were identified. RESULTS: We examined 11 methods that aim to operationalize response shift, by assessing change in the meaning of one's self-evaluation. Six of these methods distinguish between change in observed measurements (observed change) and change in the construct that was intended to be measured (target change). The methods use either (sub)group-based or individual-level analysis, or a combination. All methods have underlying assumptions to be met and alternative explanations for the inferred response shift effects. We highlighted the need to address the interpretation of the results as response shift and proposed advancing new methods handling individual variation in change over time and multiple time points. CONCLUSION: No single response shift method is optimal; each method has strengths and limitations. Additionally, extra steps need to be taken to correctly interpret the results. Advancing new methods and conducting computer simulation studies that compare methods are recommended to move response shift research forward.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.806 | 0.892 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".