Development and validation of a health related quality of life questionnaire for Brazilian children with epilepsy: preliminary findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To construct a multidimensional questionnaire that analyses the epileptic child quality of life from the parental point of view. METHOD: The pilot questionnaire was composed of 157 questions distributed in several dimensions. Fifty-one epileptic children's parents answered the questionnaire. The instrument was tested in its diverse properties: frequency of endorsement, homogeneity (Cronbach alpha), criterion and face validity, and later it was reduced. RESULTS: Endorsement frequency excluded 65 questions that did not attain a minimum of 5% response per item. Cronbach alpha was as follows: physical (0.93), psychological (0.91), social (0.91), familiar (0.70), cognitive (0.92), medical (0.30) and economical (0.37). Patient groups, in relation to seizure control, significantly differed only in physical domain and total score, although there was a trend to differences in other domains. The final questionnaire (QVCE50) has 50 items, with good homogeneity in the physical, psychological and cognitive domains. CONCLUSION: QVCE-50 is a promissing Brazilian HRQL questionnaire for children with epilepsy. It needs to be applied in a larger population to confirm its psychometric properties.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".