A battery of instruments to assess Quality of Life (BASIQ): validation of the italian adaptation of the Quality of Life Instrument Package (QoL-IP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Generic (G) Quality of Life (QoL) has broader implications and potentialities than Health-Related (HR) QoL. Italian tools for the assessment of G-QoL are few and present considerable limitations. The aim of the present work was to assess psychometric characteristics of the BASIQ (BAtteria di Strumenti per l’Indagine della Qualita di Vita), the Italian translation and adaptation of the Quality of Life Instrument Package (QoL-IP) of the Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto. The package is based on an interpretative model of QoL that integrates qualitative and quantitative, as well as subjective and objective data, but the core quality of life measure is the perception of satisfaction weighted by ratings of importance. The BASIQ is comprised of three instruments: a direct interview with the person that is scored like a questionnaire but provides considerable qualitative data, a questionnaire for proxies who know the person well (caregiver, front line healthcare operators, etc.), and a questionnaire for external assessors (general practitioner, specialist, lawyer, etc.).
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".