Validation of the Quality of Life and Function Five Domain Scale (QFS-5) against the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Quality of life (QoL) captures objective life conditions, subjective wellbeing, and personal aspirations. There is growing interest in ability-based, patient-centred instruments that are not confounded by health outcomes. The Quality of Life and Function Five Domain Scale (QFS-5) applies a multi-dimensional approach to measurement of QoL with a focus on abilities and life engagement. METHODS: The QFS-5 was validated in 1610 participants aged ≥ 50 from the Canadian Platform for Research Online to Investigate Health, Quality of Life, Cognition, Behaviour, Function, and Caregiving in Aging (CAN-PROTECT). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach′s alpha and item-total correlations. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated domain structure. Criterion validity was tested through Pearson′s correlation with the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated from associations with cognitive, mental health, and functional measures. Floor and ceiling effects were investigated. RESULTS: The QFS-5 demonstrated excellent internal consistency ( α = 0.92); CFA supported the proposed domain structure with strong item loadings. Criterion validity was confirmed with correlation of -0.61 against the EQ-5D; higher symptom burden on related scales were associated with lower QFS-5 scores. Floor effects were minimal, while modest ceiling effects were observed in some domains. No significant floor or ceiling effects were found in participants living with frailty. CONCLUSION: The QFS-5 establishes validity, reliability, and effective use of an ability-based domain structure within a sample of mostly cognitively unimpaired, community-dwelling older adults. The QFS-5 aligns with EQ-5D measurements, demonstrating its potential utility in research and clinical practice to measure relevant patient reported QoL outcomes.
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 | 0.030 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".