Validity evidence and psychometric evaluation of a socially accountable health index for health professions schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is an expectation that health professions schools respond to priority societal health needs. This expectation is largely based on the underlying assumption that schools are aware of the priority needs in their communities. This paper demonstrates how open-access, pan-national health data can be used to create a reliable health index to assist schools in identifying societal needs and advance social accountability in health professions education. Using open-access data, a psychometric evaluation was conducted to examine the reliability and validity of the Canadian Health Indicators Framework (CHIF) conceptual model. A non-linear confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on 67 health indicators, at the health-region level (n = 97) was used to assess the model fit of the hypothesized 10-factor model. Reliability analysis using McDonald’s Omega were conducted, followed by Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Findings from the non-linear CFA rejected the original conceptual model structure of the CHIF. Exploratory post hoc analyses were conducted using modification indices and parameter constraints to improve model fit. A final 5-factor multidimensional model demonstrated superior fit, reducing the number of indicators from 67 to 32. The 5-factors included: Health Conditions (8-indicators); Health Functions (6-indicators); Deaths (5-indicators); Non-Medical Health Determinants (7-indicators); and Community & Health System Characteristics (6-indicators). All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and demonstrated excellent internal consistency ( $$\upomega$$ ω >0.95). Many schools struggle to identify and measure socially accountable outcomes. The process highlighted in this paper and the indices developed serve as starting points to allow schools to leverage open-access data as an initial step in identifying societal needs.
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 | 0.030 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".