ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
A computational validation for the health concept maturity levels questionnaire.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The healthcare market is undergoing rapid transformation, requiring the integration of user needs from the earliest stages of product and service design. Living Labs are emerging as a model for the co-creation and evaluation of user-centered innovations. In this work, we developed a Health Concept Maturity Levels grid and questionnaire to assess the maturity of health concepts. Methods: The research process included multiple stages, starting with the creation of the Association Innov'Autonomie - Health Concept Maturity Levels Questionnaire - 178-items (CMLH questionnaire), designed to evaluate health concept maturity levels. Speech acts from Health Concept Maturity Levels expert interventions were then annotated and used as data for our machine learning and deep learning models. We used the CatBoost algorithm in the first experiment to discern individual Health Concept Maturity Levels factors from speech acts to generate factor probabilities used to feed a neural network trained to take the final decision, to evaluate whether the network could accurately identify the membership factors of Health Concept Maturity Levels criteria when presented with items from the CMLH questionnaire, thus establishing computational semantic validity. Results: The results of the study indicate that only the models trained with the true factors are able to correctly identify the corresponding factor in the sequentially encoded texts, with the exception of the Need domain's sensitivity metric, which showed artefactual performance. The general performance of the different CatBoost algorithms used to predict one factor versus the other two showed similar performance. For the questionnaire, the models trained with the real factors also showed better performance in identifying the matching factors compared to the random factors. A marginal difference was observed between the "Need" and "Technology" factors. Conclusion: This study introduces computational semantic validity as a novel complementary approach to traditional psychometric validation, providing evidence that supports both convergent and content validity for the CMLH questionnaire. This computational method demonstrates semantic alignment between expert discourse and questionnaire structure through machine learning and deep learning techniques. However, overlaps between "Programmatic" and "Need" factors indicate a need for improvement in the Concept Maturity Levels Health model. Future work will focus on enhancing these models and investigating their potential application as a complementary validation method for other psychometric tools.
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.