Cross cultural translation, adaptation and reliability of the Malay version of the Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness and Flu Scale (CARIFS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness and Flu Scale (CARIFS) is a parent-proxy questionnaire that assesses severity of acute respiratory infections in children. The aim was to (a) perform a cross-cultural adaptation and (b) prove that the Malay CARIFS is a reliable tool. FINDINGS: The CARIFS underwent forward and backward translations as recommended by international guidelines. A pilot study was performed on the harmonised version and the final version of the Malay version of CARIFS was produced. A test-retest, 1 h apart, was then performed on parents with children less than 13 years old, admitted with a respiratory tract infection. Parents of children with asthma and who were not eloquent in Malay, were excluded. The data was analysed for consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and reliability (test-retest co-efficient). Thirty-three parents were recruited. Children were aged median (IQR) 6 (2.8, 13.3) months with a male: female ratio of 22:11 and 88% were Malays. Parents were interviewed at median (IQR) 6 (3, 11.5) days of admission. The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.70 for all items. The test-retest reliability analysis had a minimum and maximum intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.63 and 0.97 respectively. Clinically, the longer patients were admitted, the lower the severity score (r = -0.35, p < 0.05), indicating that they were getting better. CONCLUSION: The Malay version of CARIFS is a valid and reliable tool to determine severity of respiratory illness in children. Parent-centred questionnaires are useful and should be an adjunct to other methods, in monitoring response to treatment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".