MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962729565 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/dkbsz

Psychometric properties of the FRAIL Scale: a Scoping Review

2023· article· en· W6962729565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Data extractionReading (process)Digital libraryLatin AmericansReliability (semiconductor)Selection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4300.632

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.295 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207