Are single‐item global rating scales the same, better, or worse than multi‐item scales in epilepsy: A scoping review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of single-item global ratings (SIGRs) and multi-item scales (MISs) in epilepsy research, and assess the influence of diverse constructs, study designs, and statistical methods. METHODS: Systematic scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1980 onward. English-language articles including ≥30 persons with epilepsy and using at least one SIGR and one MIS were analyzed. Citation screening at all levels was done independently by two reviewers; data extraction was standardized. We analyzed individual measurements of effect magnitude for SIGRs and MISs. For meta-analyses, correlation-related metrics were transformed to Pearson r and Fisher z transformed, and effect-size metrics were converted to Cohen's d with Hedges g correction. Multilevel meta-analyses were used to account for data heterogeneity and clustering of effect sizes within studies, and to assess the influence of predefined moderators. Publication bias was assessed with standard methods. RESULTS: A total of 18 267 citations were identified, and 58 studies were included. Effect magnitude was medium to large across measurements, and it was slightly larger for MISs than for SIGRs, both for correlations and effect sizes (difference = .04, p < .001). Overall, SIGRs and MISs were comparable, and statistically significant differences did not cross effect thresholds (from small to medium or medium to large). Correlations and effect sizes for SIGRs and MISs were lowest in studies involving children and when assessing change; and for SIGRs when Global Clinical Impression (GCI) formats were used. SIGNIFICANCE: SIGRs are likely comparable to MISs across multiple study and statistical contexts. However, in certain clinical scenarios, MISs will outperform SIGRs and vice versa. Researchers should carefully consider whether SIGRs, MISs, or a combination is most appropriate to answer the research question.
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 | 0.080 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".