MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162019789 · doi:10.82308/834

Bayesian construct validation leveraging expert knowledge for questionnaire instruments used in primary care research and practice

2024· dissertation· en· W7162019789 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhang, Hao, 1963-

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Bayesian probabilityInferenceDomain (mathematical analysis)Subject-matter expertBayesian inferenceProcess (computing)Bayesian network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Questionnaires are widely used instruments for acquiring information on latent traits, perceptions or self-reported attributes of individuals in various practical fields and research domains including education, psychology, sociology and medicine. The development of valid and reliable questionnaire instruments is a labor-intensive process requiring iterative expert input and empirical assessment of the psychometric properties of the instrument in the target population. Bayesian methods enable the incorporation of domain expert knowledge and can increase the efficiency of the development and construct validation process, potentially saving resources, time and costs. Despite numerous methodological developments in the statistical literature, Bayesian methods for questionnaire development are still underutilized in the primary care context. This is a critical gap that likely affects both practice and research in the field, as questionnaires are important instruments for day-by-day clinical decision making and research data acquisition. OBJECTIVE: The overall objective of this Ph.D. research project was to develop an effective and feasible Bayesian inference framework for questionnaire construct validation. The developed framework employs a survey approach for eliciting domain expert input to inform the required Bayesian prior distributions. METHODS: A systematic methodological review of the literature was conducted to examine the use of Bayesian methods for construct validation in the primary care context. Informed by the findings of the review, a Bayesian inference framework was developed, aiming to overcome feasibility issues of currently available methods described in the literature. The performance of the developed inference approach was assessed in comparison to standard validation approaches using an extensive Monte-Carlo simulation study. Finally, to illustrate its performance using real-world data, the developed framework was applied for the construct validation of a recently developed instrument, the McGill Empowerment Assessment – Diabetes (MEA-D) questionnaire, measuring levels of self-care in diabetes patients. RESULTS: The systematic literature review revealed that Bayesian construct validation methods are underutilized in questionnaire development studies in the primary care literature and identified prevalent shortcomings in the justification, reporting and interpretation of the respectively applied statistical validation approaches. The assessment of the newly developed Bayesian validation framework for leveraging domain expert knowledge demonstrated sound performance even under mild misspecification of expert priors. Applying the developed framework for construct validation of the MEA-D questionnaire demonstrated feasibility and consistency with the results of the standard empirical validation, yielding higher precision in estimated factor loadings.CONCLUSION: The developed Bayesian framework for leveraging domain-expert knowledge in construct validation studies enables a more inclusive and potentially more efficient (resource-saving) approach for the development of questionnaire instruments, contributing to more equitable evidence-based practice and research in primary care and beyond

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.536
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.038 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207