MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406731330 · doi:10.2196/60215

Customizing Computerized Adaptive Test Stopping Rules for Clinical Settings Using the Negative Affect Subdomain of the NIH Toolbox Emotion Battery: Simulation Study

2025· article· en· W4406731330 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saki Amagai, Aaron J. Kaat, Rina S. Fox, Emily Ho, Sarah Pila, Michael A. Kallen, Benjamin D. Schalet, Cindy J. Nowinski, Richard Gershon

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIH Office of the DirectorNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)ToolboxReliability (semiconductor)SadnessPsychologyAngerInter-rater reliabilityComputer scienceStatisticsClinical psychologyRating scaleMathematicsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial for informed medical decisions and evaluating treatments. However, they can be burdensome for patients and sometimes lack the reliability clinicians need for clear clinical interpretations. OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial for informed medical decisions and evaluating treatments. However, they can be burdensome for patients and sometimes lack the reliability clinicians need for clear clinical interpretations. METHODS: CAT simulations were conducted on three NIH Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function® (NIH Toolbox®) Emotion Battery adult item banks in the Negative Affect subdomain (i.e., Anger Affect, Fear Affect, and Sadness) containing at least eight items. In the originally applied NIH Toolbox CAT stopping rules, the CAT was stopped if the score standard error (SE) reached < 0.3 before 12 items were administered. We first contrasted this with a SE-change rule in a planned simulation analysis. We then contrasted the original rules with fixed-length CATs (4-12 items), a reduction of the maximum number of items to eight, and other modifications in post-hoc analyses. Burden was measured by the number of items administered per simulation, precision by the percentage of assessments yielding reliabilities cutoffs (0.85, 0.90, and 0.95), and accurate score recovery by root mean squared error (RMSE) between the generating theta and the CAT-estimated EAP-based theta. RESULTS: In general, relative to the original rules, the alternative stopping rules slightly decreased burden while also increasing the proportion of assessments achieving high reliability for the adult banks; however, the SE-change rule and fixed-length CATs with eight or fewer items also notably increased assessments yielding reliability < 0.85. Among the alternative rules explored, the reduced maximum stopping rule best balanced precision and parsimony, presenting another option beyond the original rules. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the challenges in attempting to reduce test burden while also achieving score precision for clinical use. Stopping rules should be modified in accordance with the context of the study population and the purpose of the study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.299
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMental Health Research Topics→French-language works237,207→