MIDAS and HIT-6 French Translation: Reliability and Correlation Between Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the French translation of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 questionnaires as applied to episodic and chronic headaches and to assess the correlation between these two questionnaires. The MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires, which assess the degree of migraine-related functional disability, are widely used in headache treatment clinics. The French translation has not been checked for test-retest reliability. MIDAS involves recall, over the previous 3 months, of the number of days with functional disability with regard to work and to home and social life. HIT-6 involves a more subjective and general assessment of headache-related disability over the previous 4 weeks. We expect that there may be greater impact recall bias for chronic headaches than for episodic headaches and considered it important to be able to determine if the reliability of these questionnaires is equally good for these two patient populations. Given that both questionnaires have the same objective, that of assessing headache impact, it was thought useful to determine if their results might show a correlation and if they could thus be used interchangeably. The study was approved by an external ethics committee. The subjects were patients who regularly visit the Clinique de la Migraine de Montréal, which specializes in the treatment of headaches. The MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires were completed by the patients during their regular visit. Twelve days later, the same questionnaires were mailed with a prepaid return envelope. Sixty-five patients were required in both the episodic and chronic headache groups, assuming an 80% questionnaire return rate. One hundred and eighty-five patients were enrolled, and 143 completed the study, 75 with episodic headaches and 68 with chronic headaches. The questionnaire return rate was 78.9%. On average, questionnaires were completed a second time 21 days after the first, with a median of 19 days. The Shrout-Fleiss intraclass correlation coefficients for MIDAS and HIT-6 were, respectively, 0.76 and 0.77 for episodic headaches and 0.83 and 0.80 for chronic headaches. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires was 0.48 for episodic headaches and 0.58 for chronic headaches at the first compilation and 0.42 and 0.59 at the second compilation. The test-retest intraclass correlation of the French versions for both MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires indicates moderate reliability for episodic headache and substantial reliability for chronic headache. The correlation between the MIDAS and HIT-6 questionnaires is weak for episodic headaches, but approaches a level of 'good' for chronic headaches.
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 | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".