Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of Caregiver Priorities & Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to translate and transculturally adapt the Caregiver Priorities & Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD) questionnaire into Korean language, and to test the reliability and validity, including the internal consistency, known-group validity and factor analysis of the Korean version of the CPCHILD. METHODS: A Korean version of CPCHILD was produced according to internationally accepted guidelines. For validity testing, 194 consecutive parents or caregivers of children with cerebral palsy (CP) were recruited and completed the questionnaire. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and known-groups validity were evaluated and factor analysis was performed to validate the Korean version of the CPCHILD. RESULTS: In terms of internal consistency, a Cronbach's alpha was above 0.90 in all domains of the CPCHILD (range 0.921 to 0.966), except the 5th domain (0.628). In terms of known-groups validity, the total score of the CPCHILD was significantly different according to the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level (p < 0.001). Intra-class correlation coefficient spanned from 0.517 to 0.801. Factor analysis showed that the five-factor solution of the CPCHILD explained 76.7% of the variance with 59.0, 6.5, 5.1, 4.2 and 3.2% of variance by each components number. CONCLUSIONS: The Korean version of CPCHILD was found to be a reliable and valid questionnaire of caregivers' perspectives on the health-related quality of life in severely affected children with CP. However, the Korean version of CPCHILD contains some redundant items, and factor analysis suggested a five-domain questionnaire. Implication for Rehabilitation The Korean version of CPCHILD is a reliable, internally consistent, valid instrument for assessing the health-related quality of life in severely affected children with CP from the perspective of caregivers. After the transcultural adaptation and validation of the Korean CPCHILD, it can be reliably used in clinical and research settings to evaluate the health-related quality of life in Korean patients with CP.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".