The Caregiver Contribution to Heart Failure Self-care Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 20-item Caregiver Contribution to Heart Failure Self-care (CACHS) was developed and tested in a series of preliminary studies providing evidence for the validity of this instrument in Canada. The purpose of this study was to assess the initial psychometric testing of a translated version of the 20-item CACHS in a European sample using classical test theory and item response theory (IRT) methods. This study is a preplanned subanalysis of data from a multisite, descriptive study of caregivers (n = 277; mean age, 52.7 years; 70.4% female) of Italian patients with heart failure. The CACHS-Italian version demonstrated adequate validity and reliability using classical test theory methods. Using IRT methods, test information function was unimodal with more item information in the negative versus positive regions of the latent trait. Most items displayed moderate to high discrimination with acceptable levels of difficulty. Differential item functioning, which determines whether caregivers from different groups with equal amounts of the latent trait have different expected item responses, differed based on caregivers' biological sex as did the IRT discrimination "α" and difficulty "β" parameters. Overall, the CACHS-Italian version demonstrated similar psychometric properties and excellent reliability as demonstrated in the Canadian sample. However, unlike the original Canadian English version, the CACHS-Italian version showed significant nonuniform differential item functioning, discrimination, and difficulty based on caregivers' biological sex. Ongoing examination of the CACHS-Italian version, particularly in men, is needed as is further linguistic validation using the Canadian CACHS-English version in non-North American English-speaking countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".