Assessing the content validity of a Patient Reported Outcome Measure item pool for Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity using cognitive interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Using Rasch measurement theory, an item pool of 12 questions has been identified, covering tenderness and swelling, disease activity, pain, physical functioning and stiffness for assessing the construct of RA disease activity. This study aimed to assess the content validity of this item pool using cognitive interviews. METHODS: Participants were randomly sampled across varying age, sex and education level categories from respondents to a survey containing RA disease activity Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. The 'think aloud' technique was used to understand how individual items were interpreted and answered the 12 items of the item pool plus 12 additional relevant items that could potentially be included. Participants were asked about relevance, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility of the set of items overall. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify these broader aspects of content validity. Participants were also asked whether they could distinguish RA symptoms from those of other conditions, whether tenderness and swelling should be assessed together or separately, and whether they felt that fatigue and general health were separate issues to their disease activity. Content analysis was used for this section of the interviews. RESULTS: Twenty participants completed one-to-one cognitive interviews between November 2022 and February 2023. No participants raised concerns relating to comprehensiveness, comprehensibility or relevance aspects of items. There was a lack of consensus on the ease of distinguishing RA symptoms from other conditions, or whether tenderness and swelling should be asked about in a single item or as separate symptoms. The majority view was that fatigue and general health were not specific to RA disease activity. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that the 12-item pool adequately captures relevant concepts of RA disease activity, with no additional items required and thus provide evidence of its content validity. Future research of content validity will be needed for any new RA disease activity items.
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 | 0.075 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".