CLEFT-Q SwePsych protocol: A prospective observational study to investigate the psychometric characteristics test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability of CLEFT-Q
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patient perceived benefit of treatment for cleft lip and/or palate is of great importance since it is central to development of cleft care. CLEFT-Q is a cleft-specific questionnaire on health-related quality of life. Test-retest reliability, aspects of responsiveness and interpretability are yet to be established for CLEFT-Q. This study aims to investigate these psychometric characteristics of CLEFT-Q. METHODS: To establish the test-retest reliability of CLEFT-Q, data will be collected repeatedly and independently at approximately 1-week intervals. Inclusion of approximately 50 patients is considered adequate for a test-retest study. To improve the interpretability of CLEFT-Q norm data from a control population of volunteers without a cleft will be collected. A total of approximately 210 participants will be included from schools, high-schools and universities. To test the responsiveness of CLEFT-Q, patients will answer selected subscales of CLEFT-Q, longitudinal anchor questions and perform global ratings of change before and after surgery. To ensure robust results, approximately 50 patients for each type of treatment will be recruited. If CLEFT-Q is found to be responsive, the pre- and postoperative difference in scores of CLEFT-Q will be compared with the change in objective measurements based on assessments by professionals in cleft care obtained in this study. To evaluate interpretability, results will be analysed to investigate the minimal important change using anchor-based, distribution-based and qualitative approach. REGISTRATION DETAILS: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the ID 2021-06993-01.
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 | 0.031 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.011 |
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".