Comparison of Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire scores to neuropsychological test performance in school-aged children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire (HOQ) is an established means of measuring quality of life, but the cognitive component of this questionnaire has never been formally compared with gold-standard neuropsychological test scores. The authors hypothesized that the HOQ Cognitive Health score would demonstrate a relatively strong correlation with neuropsychological test scores, whereas much weaker correlations would be seen for HOQ Physical and Social-Emotional Health scores. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of children with long-standing hydrocephalus presenting to The Hospital for Sick Children's Neurosurgery Clinic was performed between July 2006 and September 2008. Participating children and families completed the HOQ and a battery of 21 standard neuropsychological tests and questionnaires. Pearson correlation analysis was then performed. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients (81% participation) was accrued; the mean age was 11.5 ± 3.4 years (mean ± SD) at the time of assessment. The mean age at hydrocephalus treatment was 1.3 ± 2.6 years. The mean overall HOQ score was 0.69 ± 0.21. The HOQ Cognitive score had a moderate or strong correlation with 19 (90%) of 21 neuropsychological test scores, much more so than the HOQ Social-Emotional score (5 moderate or strong correlations, 24%) and the HOQ Physical score (1 moderate correlation, 5%). For 19 neuropsychological tests (90%), the HOQ Cognitive score had a stronger correlation than the other scores. The HOQ Cognitive score had particularly strong correlations with the Verbal IQ, List Learning, Behavior Problems, and Metacognitive Abilities components. CONCLUSIONS: Data from a wide-ranging representative sample of children with long-standing hydrocephalus provide added evidence of the validity of the HOQ Cognitive score and the overall domain structure of the HOQ itself.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".