Development and psychometric validation of the Chronic Rhinosinusitis Control Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disease control assessment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) remains a challenge. In this study, we develop and psychometrically validate a new patient-reported outcome measure, the Chronic Rhinosinusitis Control Test (CRCT), for assessing CRS control. METHODOLOGY: The CRCT, which includes 8 items and has a score that ranges from 0-31, incorporates the perspectives of key stakeholders (patients and healthcare providers) and was developed incorporating methodologic guidance from the COSMIN initiative and United States Food and Drug Administration. Psychometric validation was performed in line with recommendations from the COSMIN initiative to establish validity, reliability and responsiveness in a sample of 545 CRS patients and with the participation of 23 expert rhinologists. RESULTS: The CRCT has excellent face validity, content validity, concurrent validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. Factor analysis reveals that the CRCT has 2 subdomains: sinonasal and impairment subdomains in addition to a final item related to CRS-related oral corticosteroid usage in the past 3 months. Using a distribution-based and multiple anchorbased methods, the CRCT has a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 4 points. After 23 expert rhinologists independently classified all possible combinations of scoring on the CRCT, scores of ≤7 indicate controlled CRS, 8 to 15 (inclusive) partly controlled CRS and ≥16 uncontrolled CRS. CONCLUSION: The CRCT is a psychometrically validated measure of CRS control. CRS may be classified as controlled based on CRCT score ≤7, partly controlled with CRCT score of 8 to 15 (inclusive) and uncontrolled with CRCT score ≥16. The MCIDs for improvement and worsening are both 4.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".