This one time in maybe 2018 I pissed off a few uni colleagues. At a "senate" meeting (it deserves quotation marks at my school) some people with #psychometrics training & experience, including me, explained that a specific kind of #assessment was invalid--as in zero validity for intended purpose--so we should not use it. It literally provides no information about what it says, so we might as well roll dice or draw #random words from a hat.
The administration argued vehemently for keeping the assessment. They claimed it was valid (we showed them it wasn't). They claimed that a "caring" or "astute" instructor could glean valuable information (we showed them that this wasn't possible). They appealed to the other professors, implying that not using this assessment meant they didn't care about their students, and that voting to eliminate this assessment meant they (the eggheaded intellectuals) were being dunked on by the eggheaded intellectuals.
The measure failed and we still use the assessment. After the meeting I and someone else were bemoaning the result. I said something like "What happened in there was Trumpian." A colleague walking by overheard and angrily asked, "What do you mean by that?!"
I said, "The faculty heard from the experts telling them something they didn't like and they chose to go with the people who had no expertise telling them what they wanted to hear."
(I am sometimes not diplomatic; this makes a good story, but I really wish I had found a better way to say that.)
The person audibly huffed, actually turned on their heel, and walked away. They haven't spoken to me since.
!["And cognizant that when there is multimorbidity, the outcomes prioritized tend to be life-impact outcomes, as described by Vidyasagaran et al in their work on COS for prevention and treatment of multimorbidity in adults in LMICs (68) and these outcomes tend to be less granular in their definition (101)."
Karumbi, 2024, Improving core outcome sets development
in low-and middle-income countries, Liverpool.
"A previously developed COS for multimorbidity (COSmm) with inputs from a systematic review of studies and an expert panel, both solely from HICs, also included ‘Health-related quality of life’ among their highest scoring outcomes. [...] This similarity between COSmm and our results suggests that the outcome ‘quality of life’ may be relevant to multiple stakeholders and well-suited across diverse contexts to capture the impacts of living with multimorbidity. [...] The inclusion of adherence to treatment’ and ‘healthcare costs’ is further similarity between COSmm and our treatment COS. However, while costs are only presented as a broad health systems outcome in COSmm, we specify its scope as covering out-of-pocket treatment costs to people living with multimorbidity, given that this can be an important source of catastrophic health expenditures and impoverishment in many LMICs."
[some quotes redacted as there is not enough space allowed in Mastodon to reproduce all on that picture, sorry. Check my Bluesky where this was not a problem.]](https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/113/996/989/760/359/844/original/1339ae2c0db80799.png "\"And cognizant that when there is multimorbidity, the outcomes prioritized tend to be life-impact outcomes, as described by Vidyasagaran et al in their work on COS for prevention and treatment of multimorbidity in adults in LMICs (68) and these outcomes tend to be less granular in their definition (101).\"
Karumbi, 2024, Improving core outcome sets development
in low-and middle-income countries, Liverpool.
\"A previously developed COS for multimorbidity (COSmm) with inputs from a systematic review of studies and an expert panel, both solely from HICs, also included ‘Health-related quality of life’ among their highest scoring outcomes. [...] This similarity between COSmm and our results suggests that the outcome ‘quality of life’ may be relevant to multiple stakeholders and well-suited across diverse contexts to capture the impacts of living with multimorbidity. [...] The inclusion of adherence to treatment’ and ‘healthcare costs’ is further similarity between COSmm and our treatment COS. However, while costs are only presented as a broad health systems outcome in COSmm, we specify its scope as covering out-of-pocket treatment costs to people living with multimorbidity, given that this can be an important source of catastrophic health expenditures and impoverishment in many LMICs.\"
[some quotes redacted as there is not enough space allowed in Mastodon to reproduce all on that picture, sorry. Check my Bluesky where this was not a problem.]")
Does leaning left politically make you a more prosocial person?
