Assessing Whether Parents and Children Perceive the Meaning of the Items in the PedsQLTM 4.0 Quality of Life Instrument Consistently: A Differential Item Functioning Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited studies have examined the effect of differential item functioning (DIF) on comparing health related quality of life (HRQoL) scores across child self-reports and parent proxy-reports. This study aims to determine whether parents and children respond differently to the items in the Persian version of the PedsQoLTM 4.0 measure. The PedsQLTM 4.0 Generic Core Scales was completed by 938 child-parent dyads. The graded response model (GRM) was used to detect DIF between parents and children. The IRT analyses were conducted using IRTPRO 2.1.On the whole, our findings showed that 50% (4 out of 8) of the items in the physical subscale and 40% (2 out of 5) in both emotional and school subscales were flagged with DIF. Among the DIF items, 62.5% (5 out of 8) were uniform and the remaining 37.5% (3 out of 8) were non-uniform. Parents and children interpret certain items of the PedsQLTM 4.0 in a different ways, except for the social subscale. Hence, we should be cautious about using parent proxy-report as a substitute for a child's ratings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".