MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414640123 · doi:10.1101/2025.09.24.25335962

Impact of speeding on the validity of patient-reported outcome measures. An analysis of psychometric properties stratified by response times

2025· preprint· en· W4414640123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jens Laigaard, Saber Muthanna Saber Aljuboori, Søren Overgaard, Karl Bang Christensen

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisConstruct validityOsteoarthritisItem response theoryPatient-reported outcomePsychometricsArthroplastyQuality of life (healthcare)Outcome (game theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Randomised trials and meta-evidence increasingly rely on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures PROMs, including validity, reliability, and responsiveness, are typically established using high-quality datasets, which may not reflect the data quality in clinical trials. Increasing survey burden and fatigue may lead to issues with short response times that can reflect insufficient engagement. This phenomenon, often referred to as ‘speeding’ can lead to random, patterned, or otherwise invalid responses. Objective This study aims to investigate how response times influence the psychometric properties of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain domain in patients with chronic postsurgical pain. Methods The study is based on responses to the 5-item Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain domain (Likert-scale, version 3.1) from 2,031 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA), 2,172 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and 870 patients who underwent unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) more than one year previously. Each of the three datasets, containing patients who have undergone THA, UKA and TKA, are individually stratified into response time deciles. For each of the deciles, we will evaluate if the data fit a congeneric measurement model, i.e. a model that assumes that the set of observed items all measure the same underlying latent factor. This evaluation of construct validity is done using Item Response Theory (IRT) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Perspective The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We will seek to make the report freely available, either by open-access publication or through publication on a preprint server, e.g. www.medrxiv.org .

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)0.652
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.736
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6520.736
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.048
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.571
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.109 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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 venuemedRxiv→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→