Measuring Physical Function in Children with Spina Bifida and Dislocated Hips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop a questionnaire to evaluate the activities of daily living that are important to children with spina bifida and dislocated hips and their families. Ninety-six items were generated from a review of the literature and interviews with clinicians, parents, and children with spina bifida and dislocated hips. Items were rated independently for "importance" and "severity" by the children and their parents. The 26 most important and severe items were formatted into a self-administered questionnaire, the Spina Bifida Hips Questionnaire (SBHQ). Parents and children completed 2 weeks apart the SBHQ, the Activities Scale for Kids (ASK), and the Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Questionnaire (PODCQ). The SBHQ showed excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation = 0.97). Construct validity was established by correlations with the ASK (r = 0.79, P < 0.01) and the PODCQ (r = 0.84, P < 0.01). In conclusion, the SBHQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire for the evaluation of treatment outcomes for children with spina bifida and dislocated hips.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".