Internal structure validity and internal consistency reliability of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) is one of the most used tools to measure health-related quality of life in heart failure. Despite extensive use in research, evidence on the MLHFQ's internal structure validity remains heterogeneous and inconclusive. There are no known reviews that systematically summarise the evidence related to the MLHFQ's factor structure (internal structure validity). This gap highlights a need to critically appraise, summarise and compare the available evidence on the internal structure and internal consistency reliability (ICR) of the MLHFQ. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will adhere to the reporting guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. We will systematically search eleven electronic databases/search engines (Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Global Health, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Scopus, Journals, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Dissertation and Theses Global) for quantitative studies assessing the MLHFQ's factor structure and ICR. Two reviewers will then independently screen studies for eligibility and assess the quality of included studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments checklist. Throughout the review, discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or by the involvement of the third reviewer. We will analyse and present results using descriptive statistics (frequencies, proportions and ranges) and narrative synthesis. We will include all the relevant studies published within the timeframe covered by the database. We carried out the preliminary search in November 2022 except for Dissertation and Theses Global which was searched in September 2023; however, we will update the entire search right before the review completion in January 2024. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as no primary data is being collected from individuals. We intend to share the findings of the review at international conferences and publish manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023346919.
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 | 0.114 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.009 |
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".