Development and Validation of a Pediatric IBD Knowledge Inventory Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Questionnaires exist to assess inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related knowledge of adults. Owing to wording and content concerns, these were believed to be inappropriate for use in pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire to assess disease-related knowledge of pediatric patients with IBD and their parents. METHODS: Following a formal process of item generation and reduction, the IBD-Knowledge Inventory Device was developed and pilot tested. It was administered to 10- to 17-year-old patients with IBD, and to 1 of each of their parents. To evaluate its discriminatory validity, pediatric residents, nurses, and ward clerks completed the questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients (mean 42, Crohn disease 46, age 14(±2) years) and 99 parents completed the IBD-Knowledge Inventory Device. Parent knowledge scores, 15(±4), were higher than those of patients, 11(±4), P < 0.001. Patient and parent knowledge scores were strongly correlated (r = 0.62, P < 0.001). Patient knowledge score was significantly related to disease type (Crohn disease scored higher than ulcerative colitis, P = 0.004) and to perceived knowledge level (P < 0.001) by regression analysis. Similarly, parent knowledge score was significantly related to sex (girls scored higher, P = 0.014), postsecondary education (P < 0.001), and perceived knowledge level (P = 0.002). The questionnaire scores of 23 were 19, 16, and 10, respectively, for residents, nurses, and ward clerks. Both residents and nurses scored significantly higher than ward clerks (P = 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: A valid IBD-related knowledge assessment questionnaire was developed for use in older children and adolescents with IBD and their parents.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".