THE STRUCTURE, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE TO MEASURE QUALITY OF LIFE IN CHILDREN WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) can have an enormous effect on the quality of life (QOL) of affected individuals. A disease specific measure of QOL in childhood IBD (IMPACT) was developed in Canada then modified in the Netherlands and the UK. Aim: To determine the structure, reliability and validity of the UK version of IMPACT. Methods: 100 children (8-17yrs) with IBD completed the IMPACT questionnaire and Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) while attending the outpatient clinic. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed to generate the factor structure of the instrument. Cronbach alpha coefficients were computed to ascertain internal reliability. ANOVA was used to calculate the discriminant ability of IMPACT and Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess the concurrent validity of IMPACT compared to the CHQ. Results: The most clinically meaningful and statistically robust solution of the PCA highlighted 5 factors: concerns about IBD (alpha 0.88), IBD symptoms (alpha 0.83), body image (alpha 0.79), embarrassment (alpha 0.79) and energy (alpha 0.74). IMPACT showed good discriminant validity between mild/moderate & severe disease activity. There were significant correlations between several domains of IMPACT and corresponding CHQ domains. Summary: The factor structure of IMPACT has been altered to suit British children with IBD. It has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument to measure their QOL. Conclusions: IMPACT can now be piloted in clinical trials and clinical practice. Further research is required to determine the most effective way(s) to improve QOL in children with IBD.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".