Revised versions of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) are more sensitive and suffer less from a ceiling effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative discriminant validity of 3 new versions of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) and to determine the relative concordance between children and their parents. METHODS: The parents of 48 children with musculoskeletal disability and 101 nondisabled controls were given the CHAQ and the 3 revised versions in random order. Children older than 5 years also completed the questionnaires. RESULTS: All 3 new versions of the CHAQ were more sensitive at differentiating patients from controls (relative efficiency 1.35-1.65); the versions with 8 added items were even more sensitive (relative efficiency 1.79-2.32). The new versions of the CHAQ suffered less from a ceiling effect and were more normally distributed. Concordance between children and parents was moderate to high for all versions. CONCLUSION: Researchers and clinicians should consider using a revision of the CHAQ. By being more sensitive at differentiating patients, the revised versions of the CHAQ will allow fewer subjects to be studied and will be more able to detect differences between patients in the clinic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".