Psychometric properties of the FRAIL Scale: a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scope review aims to identify whether the FRAIL instruments used in different countries have been subjected to cross-cultural adaptation processes and under which theoretical frameworks. In addition, it seeks to analyze the available evidence of validity and reliability of the FRAIL scale. The search for studies will be carried out in the following databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, Psycinfo, VHL Regional Portal and Epistemonikos. In addition, gray literature will be consulted through Google Scholar, Canadian Thesis Portal, Ebsco Open Dissertations, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD), Open Access Theses and Dissertations, CAPES thesis and dissertation catalogue, DART-E European theses bank , Network of Latin American Repositories, Bank of theses U. Chile, Bank of Theses U. Católica de Chile. Duplicate studies will be detected and removed in the Mendeley bibliographic manager and then the selection screening will be carried out in the Rayyan systematic review manager based on the eligibility criteria previously established by reading the title and abstract (phase 1), followed by from reading the full text of the studies selected in phase 1 (phase 2). To identify other eligible studies, the reference lists cited by the studies selected in Phase 2 will be screened. Data from the selected studies will be rigorously screened and collected by filling out an Excel data extraction form. All steps will be performed by two independent and blind reviewers, and in case of disagreement by a third reviewer. All studies, regardless of their methodological quality, will undergo data extraction. The search results will be fully reported in the final report and presented in a PRISMA flowchart. The included studies, according to selection criteria, will undergo a critical evaluation process and a qualitative (narrative) synthesis will be carried out describing the characteristics of the studies (methodology, context, place, country, year, language); characteristics of the sample; characteristics of Cross-Cultural Adaptation; characteristics of the frailty assessment; Evidence of Validity (content, response process, internal structure, relationship with other variables and consequences of the test) and evidence of Reliability. If necessary, the authors of the primary studies will be sought for clarification or further information. The information will also be shown in descriptive tables and graphs where all this information will be grouped for a better understanding.
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 | 0.105 | 0.365 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".