Assessing Physical Disability in Children with Spina Bifida and Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess physical disability related to the spine in children with spina bifida and scoliosis and their families. Eighty-eight items were generated from a review of the literature and interviews with clinicians, parents, and children with spina bifida and scoliosis. Items were reviewed by 40 children and ranked. After eliminating redundant items, the top 25 items were formatted into a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire, completed 2 weeks apart, demonstrated "excellent" test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.88). Construct validity was established by high correlation with a validated scale of overall disability: the Activities Scale for Kids (r = 0.86, p < 0.01) and by correlations with global assessment of function. In conclusion, the Spina Bifida Spine Questionnaire is a valid and reliable questionnaire and can be used to assess the outcomes of treatment for children with spina bifida and scoliosis.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".