MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165810789 · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001815

Standard Psychometric Criteria for Measurements in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine

2021· article· en· W3165810789 on OpenAlexaff
Samah Hassan, Luigi Tesio, Dinesh Kumbhare

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychometricsConstruct (python library)RehabilitationPopulationMedicineConstruct validityMEDLINEApplied psychologyPsychometric testingReliability (semiconductor)Clinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychologyComputer scienceCronbach's alpha

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Measurements of person's variable, such as behavior, perceptions, or attitudes, are essential to physical and rehabilitation medicine in both clinical practice and research. These measurements are commonly based on cumulative questionnaires and follow special statistical rules, belonging to the domain of psychometrics. Selecting the most appropriate measurement is critical. This article provides an overview of the standard psychometric criteria to consider in measurement selection. The article focuses on the criteria related to the contemporary psychometric approach as it considers the construct, the target population, and the purpose for which measurements are used. Common strategies related to psychometric testing are discussed and applied to critically appraise, as a representative example, one of the most commonly used pain measurements: Brief Pain Inventory. The measurement construct, conceptual framework, target population, purpose, and psychometric properties are highlighted. Observed limitations for its implementation in different settings also are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.166
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.384
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1660.384
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207