Assessing Social Participation Among Kidney Transplant Recipients Using PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Social participation is a valued aspect of quality of life among kidney transplant recipients; however, few validated measures exist to assess it. This study aimed to explore the reliability and validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (PROMIS-SP), administered as a computer adaptive test (CAT), among kidney transplant recipients. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving a convenience sample of adult recipients from Toronto, Canada. Participants completed the PROMIS-SP CAT and legacy measures of social participation on an electronic data capture platform. Reliability of the PROMIS-SP CAT was determined using standard error of measurement (SEM) and test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient. Convergent validity was assessed by calculating Spearman's correlation between the PROMIS-SP CAT and legacy measures, and construct validity was assessed using known group comparisons. Results: = 0.93) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97) of the PROMIS-SP CAT were excellent. Strong correlations were observed between PROMIS-SP CAT and social difficulty inventory (SDI) (rho = -0.65), SDI "everyday living" (rho = -0.68), and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ5D5L) "usual activities" (rho = -0.66). PROMIS-SP CAT scores were significantly different between known groups in the expected direction. Conclusion: Our results support the validity and reliability of PROMIS-SP CAT among kidney transplant recipients, and suggest that this tool can be used to identify recipients with restricted social participation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".