Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36344737›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Using machine-learning strategies to solve psychometric problems.

Arthur Trognon, Youssouf Ismail Cherifi, Islem Habibi, Loïs Demange, Cécile Prudent

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Arthur TrognonClinicog, 185 rue Gabriel Mouilleron, 54000, Nancy, France. arthur.trognon@clinicog.fr.
Youssouf Ismail CherifiINSERM, CNRS, Institut de la Vision, Sorbonne Université, 17 Rue Moreau, 75012, Paris, France.
Islem HabibiClinicog, 185 rue Gabriel Mouilleron, 54000, Nancy, France.
Loïs DemangeLorraine University, 23 Boulevard Albert 1er, 54000, Nancy, France.
Cécile PrudentBePsyLab, Angers University, 5Bis Boulevard Lavoisier, 49045, Angers, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningSupport Vector MachineAlgorithmsHumansPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID36344737
PMCPMC9640572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.