Comparison of questionnaire items for discomfort glare studies in daylit spaces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When studying discomfort glare, researchers tend to rely on a single questionnaire item to obtain user evaluations. It is unclear whether the choice of questionnaire item affects the distribution of user responses and leads to inconsistencies between studies. This study aims to investigate if different glare questionnaire items yield similar distributions of user discomfort in daylit environments. We conducted a comparative study of selected questionnaire items from previous glare experiments, testing them in three independent user studies with different lighting conditions and glare stimuli. We compared the resulting outputs across questionnaire items with 540 data points from 149 participants. Results indicated that ordinal questionnaire outputs show strong correlations (0.68 < ρ < 0.85), high internal reliability (α = 0.93) and captured the same latent construct. Binary questionnaire items reflected different glare thresholds but still correlated well with ordinal items. The construct validity of tested questionnaire items was confirmed through responses to an open-ended question. These findings suggest that the tested questionnaire items may be used for category rating-type discomfort glare evaluations and consistently capture the same construct.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it