The reliability and validity of the Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire, in a sample of Swedish children with Type 1 diabetes and their parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study background: The Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire (DFRQ) is a self-report questionnaire developed to measure family sharing of responsibility for diabetes treatment tasks. The Swedish version of the DFRQ is currently being used in an ongoing family intervention study at The Queen Silvia Children´s hospital. Testing the reliability and validity of the instrument in a Swedish population is an important work in raising the quality of its contribution to research. Aim: The overall aim of the study was to assess the psychometric properties of the DFRQ in a Swedish sample of children, mothers and fathers. A second aim was to bring fathers into the sample and to evaluate whether there are any differences in how mothers and fathers perceive family sharing of responsibility for diabetes treatment tasks. Methods: 159 inhouse patients, 8-18 years, from two diabetes centres, and their parents, participated in the study. The DFRQ was administered by postal mail to the families. Internal consistency of the scale was measured with Cronbach’s alpha and its concurrent validity was evaluated using bivariate correlations. Independent t -tests were performed to test for differences between mother- and father reports. The study was reviewed and approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board. Results: The Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire exceeded the criteria for satisfactory internal consistency for the child-, mother- and father reports with a-values ranging from .87 to .90. Furthermore, children and parents reported that the child assumed greater responsibility for diabetes management tasks with increasing age, thus confirming concurrent validity of the instrument. Conclusion: In summary the study concludes that the Swedish version of the DFRQ can be utilized as a valuable tool both in a research setting and in clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".