ArticlePopulation health management2016
Adaptive Measurement of Well-Being: Maximizing Efficiency and Optimizing User Experience during Individual Assessment.
Article in Population health management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Are You Doing… Really? A Review of Whole Person Health Assessments.The Milbank quarterly · 2025Review
- A scoping review of well-being measures: conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- A Dance Movement Psychotherapy Intervention for the Wellbeing of Children With an Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Pilot Intervention Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Well-being is linked to important societal factors such as health care costs and productivity and has experienced a surge in development activity of both theories and measurement. This study builds on validation of the Well-Being 5 survey and for the first time applies Item Response Theory, a modern and flexible measurement paradigm, to form the basis of adaptive population well-being measurement. Adaptive testing allows survey questions to be administered selectively, thereby reducing the number of questions required of the participant. After the graded response model was fit to a sample of size N = 12,035, theta scores were estimated based on both the full-item bank and a simulation of Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT). Comparisons of these 2 sets of score estimates with each other and of their correlations with external outcomes of job performance, absenteeism, and hospital admissions demonstrate that the CAT well-being scores maintain accuracy and validity. The simulation indicates that the average survey taker can expect a reduction in number of items administered during the CAT process of almost 50%. An increase in efficiency of this extent is of considerable value because of the time savings during the administration of the survey and the potential improvement of user experience, which in turn can help secure the success of a total population-based well-being improvement program. (Population Health Management 2016;19:284-290).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.