Internet and written respiratory questionnaires yield equivalent results for adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared results from Internet and written questionnaires about respiratory symptoms in order to find out if both forms of the survey yielded the same answers. One thousand seventy-one students, ages 13 to 17, were asked to complete either an Internet or a written questionnaire. The demographic characteristics of the participants equalled those of the general Dutch adolescent population. Participants were randomly assigned to fill out an electronic or written questionnaire. In addition to eight items from the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire, two items on doctor visits (medical attention) regarding asthma or allergic disease during the past 12 months were included. The participation rate was 87%. The Internet version of the questionnaire showed fewer missing answers than the written version, but this was not statistically significant. The respiratory items did not show statistically significant score differences between the Internet and written modes of administration, and there was no visible trend for higher respectively lower scores by either mode of questionnaire administration. From these results, we conclude that respiratory questionnaires may be provided to adolescents electronically rather than on paper, since both approaches yielded equal results. To generalize these findings, we recommend repeated studies in other settings.
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 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".