Classic test and generalizability theories are both useful for cross-cultural adaptation of an allergic rhinitis health-related quality of life questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An instrument to assess Allergic Rhinitis (AR) Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) in adult patients was developed in Spain. No validated instrument is currently cross-culturally adapted for use in daily practice to assess HRQL in AR patients in Colombia. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the measurement performance of an AR-HRQL specific questionnaire, ESPRINT-15 (Cuestionario ESPañol de Calidad de Vida en RINiTis), in Colombian adult patients with AR using the Classic Test Theory (CTT) and the Generalizability theory (G-theory) frameworks. METHODS: We conducted the cross-cultural adaptation in 2 stages. In stage 1, we evaluated comprehensibility, acceptability, and feasibility of ESPRINT-15 in healthy adults and adult patients with AR. In stage 2, we examined both reliability and validity of ESPRINT-15 scores using CTT and overall reliability applying the G-theory in adult patients with AR. RESULTS: For feasibility and acceptability, all items showed a higher than 95% level of understanding, and modifications in the original questionnaire were unnecessary. Reliability and validity using CTT showed a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and Mc McDonald's omega = 0.95) and test-retest reliability (scores from 0.70 to 0.76). The overall reliability score using G-theory was 0.75, and G-coefficients scores associated with internal consistency and test-retest reliability measures were 0.96 and 0.61, respectively. Validity using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified 2 factors instead of the original ESPRINT-15 4 domains. However, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed good fit regarding the original model. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed cross-cultural adaptation of ESPRINT-15 showed good reliability and validity measures. Additionally, it was easy to use and administer. ESPRINT-15 can be used clinically and for research in Colombian adults' patients with AR. CTT and the G-theory can be used in epidemiological studies to adapt AR-HRQL questionnaires cross-culturally in adult patients with AR.
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 | 0.043 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".