Validation of the Dutch Giving Youth a Voice Questionnaire (GYV-20): A measure of the client-centredness of rehabilitation services from an adolescent perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective was to validate the Dutch translation of the Canadian Giving Youth a Voice Questionnaire (GYV-20) for use in paediatric rehabilitation settings in The Netherlands. The GYV-20 consists of 20 items (assessing four domains) and was designed to evaluate the client-centredness of rehabilitation services from an adolescent perspective. METHOD: The construct validity, concurrent validity, and reliability of the Dutch GYV-20 were determined. Participants were 116 youngsters aged 11 - 21 years (Mean = 15.9; SD = 2.1) recruited through six paediatric rehabilitation settings in The Netherlands. RESULTS: Correlations between the GYV-20 scale scores were positive (r = 0.69 - 0.78). The GYV-20 showed adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.76 - 0.81. The ICCs of test-retest reliability ranged from 0.82 - 0.92, which demonstrated good stability of the GYV-20. Dutch adolescents judged the GYV-20 as a valuable and useful tool to evaluate rehabilitation services in The Netherlands. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch GYV-20 showed sufficient evidence of construct validity and good reliabilities. The Dutch GYV-20 offers users a useful measurement option for various research and clinical purposes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".