Construct validation of the Health Utilities Index and the Child Health Questionnaire in children undergoing cancer chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of two questionnaire-based measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in children undergoing cancer chemotherapy: the Health Utilities Index (HUI) and the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ). Subjects were children hospitalised for chemotherapy. To examine construct validity: (1). a priori expected relations between CHQ concepts and HUI attributes were examined; (2). HUI and CHQ summary scores were compared to visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Ease of completion was rated using a 5-point categorical scale and completion time was recorded. A total of 36 subjects were included. The maximum score was seen in 15 (47%) of HUI3 assessments. As predicted, CHQ body pain was moderately correlated with HUI3 pain (r=0.51), CHQ physical functioning was moderately correlated with HUI2 mobility (r=0.58) and CHQ mental health was moderately correlated with HUI2 emotion (r=0.53). Only the CHQ psychosocial subscale (and not HUI) was correlated with VAS (r=0.44). The CHQ and the HUI were both easy to use. The HUI questionnaires required less time to complete (mean=3.1, s.d.=1 min) compared with CHQ (mean=13.1, s.d.=3.4 min, P<0.0001). In conclusion, HUI and CHQ demonstrated construct validity in children undergoing cancer chemotherapy. The Health Utilities Index is subject to a ceiling effect whereas CHQ requires more time to complete.
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 | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".