ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Measurement properties of a patient-reported outcome scale for peptic ulcer: a validation study using classical test theory and generalizability theory.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. 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
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the measurement properties of the Patient-Reported Outcome Scale for Peptic Ulcer (PROISCD-PU) and to examine its reliability, validity, responsiveness, and domain-level measurement precision using an integrated framework of Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Generalizability Theory (GT).
methodsA total of 300 patients with peptic ulcer were recruited from tertiary hospitals and completed the PROISCD-PU. Classical Test Theory was used to evaluate internal consistency, construct validity, clinical discriminant validity, and responsiveness. Generalizability Theory was applied to identify sources of measurement variance and estimate relative generalizability (Eρ
resultsThe PROISCD-PU demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for most domains and satisfactory construct validity, supported by item-domain correlation analyses and structural equation modeling. Clinical discriminant validity was partially supported, with significant differences after Holm-Bonferroni correction observed in the spirituality/belief health domain, general module subtotal, and disease-specific domain. Significant improvements were observed following treatment across all domains and the total scale, with standardized response mean values indicating moderate to large responsiveness. Generalizability analyses showed that person-by-item interaction was the major source of measurement variance. Absolute dependability (Φ) was acceptable for the mental health, social health, and disease-specific domains, whereas comparatively lower Φ coefficients were observed for the physical health and spirituality/belief health domains, indicating priorities for future refinement.
conclusionsThe PROISCD-PU demonstrated generally acceptable reliability, validity, responsiveness, and domain-level measurement precision for assessing patient-reported outcomes in peptic ulcer disease. The combined use of Classical Test Theory and Generalizability Theory provides complementary psychometric evidence supporting its application in clinical outcome evaluation and quality-of-life research. Future studies should evaluate longitudinal score stability in clinically stable patients and apply multivariate Generalizability Theory to optimize the reliability and scoring structure of the total composite score.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.