ArticleScientific reports2022
Using machine-learning strategies to solve psychometric problems.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- Deep learning of conversation-based 'filmstrips' for robust Alzheimer's disease detection.npj aging · 2025Article
- Abbreviated Duke Activity Status Index for Risk Stratification in Heart Failure.The American journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- A computational validation for the health concept maturity levels questionnaire.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Validating scales for clinical use is a common procedure in medicine and psychology. Through the application of computational methods, we present a new strategy for estimating construct validity and criterion validity. XGBoost, Random Forest and Support-Vector machine learning algorithms were employed in order to make predictions based on the pattern of participants' responses by systematically controlling computational experiments with artificial experiments whose results are guaranteed. According to these findings, these approaches are capable of achieving construct and criterion validity and therefore could provide an additional layer of evidence to traditional validation approaches. In particular, this study examined the extent to which measured items are inferable by theoretically related items, as well as the extent to which the information carried by a given construct can be translated into other theoretically compatible normative scales based on other constructs (thereby providing information about construct validity); as well as the replicability of clinical decision rules on several partitions (thereby providing information about criterion validity).
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.