MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W93141420 · doi:10.1155/2012/914138

Validation of a New Questionnaire with Generic and Disease-Specific Qualities: The Mcgill Copd Quality of Life Questionnaire

2012· article· en· W93141420 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Smita Pakhalé, Sharon Wood-Dauphinée, Jean‐Paul Collet, François Maltais, Sarah Bernard, Marc Baltzan, Michel Rouleau, Jean Bourbeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalMount Sinai HospitalUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)COPDDiseaseGerontologyPhysical therapyFamily medicinePathologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A validated health-related quality of life questionnaire in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with advantages of both generic- and disease-specific questionnaires is needed to capture patients' perspectives of severity and impact of the disease. The McGill COPD questionnaire was created to include these advantages in English and French. It assesses three domains: symptoms, physical function and feelings with 29 items (12 from the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey with 17 from the previously developed COPD-specific module). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of this newly developed hybrid questionnaire in subjects with COPD. METHODS: Data from a multicentre, prospective cohort study involving four hospitals with COPD subjects undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation were used. Patient evaluations included health-related quality of life (the new McGill COPD questionnaire, the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey) and pulmonary function tests pre-and postrehabilitation. Reliability, validity and responsiveness were tested. RESULTS: The study included 246 COPD subjects (111 females) with a mean age of 66 years, 87% ex- and 8% current smokers (mean 61 pack-years) and mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 1.12 L (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stages: 2, 27%; 3, 33%; and 4, 37%). Missing data were <2% and floor and ceiling effects were <5%. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.68 to 0.82. Test-retest reliability (intracorrelation coefficients) ranged from 0.74 to 0.96 for the subscales, and 0.95 for the total score. Correlation with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire was moderately high (r=-0.88 [95% CI -0.91 to -0.84]), consistent with the a priori hypothesis for convergent validity. The effect size was 0.33 (pre-postrehabilitation mean score difference = 6), suggesting a small to moderate change. CONCLUSIONS: The new McGill COPD questionnaire showed high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity and moderate responsiveness in COPD subjects.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207