Sensibility assessment of the HIV Disability Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess the sensibility of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Disability Questionnaire (HDQ), the first HIV-specific disability questionnaire. METHODS: We administered the HDQ, a sensibility questionnaire and a structured qualitative interview to 22 adults living with HIV and five experienced clinicians. We considered the HDQ sensible if median scores on the sensibility questionnaire were ≥5 for adults living with HIV and ≥4 for clinicians for at least 80% of the items. We analyzed the interview data using directed qualitative content analytical techniques. RESULTS: Questionnaire scores were ≥5 for 88% (15/17) of the items and ≥4 for 100% (17/17) of the items for adults living with HIV and clinicians, respectively. The interview analysis indicated participants felt the HDQ possessed face and content validity in all disability dimensions, had adequate response options, was easy to complete, and adequately captured the episodic nature of disability. Participants had mixed responses about the questionnaire title and provided recommendations to refine item wording and response options. CONCLUSIONS: The HDQ appears sensible for use with adults living with HIV. Next steps include further measurement property assessment. The HDQ may be used by rehabilitation clinicians and researchers to assess disability experienced by adults living with HIV. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: • As people with HIV infection live longer, individuals may face a range of health-related challenges due to the disease, concurrent health conditions and the potential adverse effects of treatment. Together, these health-related challenges may be termed disability. • The HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ) is the first HIV-specific instrument developed to describe the presence, severity and episodic nature of the disability experienced by adults living with HIV. The HDQ is comprised of four domains including symptoms and impairments, uncertainty about future health, difficulties carrying out day-to-day activities, and challenges to social inclusion. • The HDQ appears sensible for use with adults living with HIV, possessing face and content validity and ease of use in all four domains as well as describing the daily episodic nature of disability. • The HDQ may be used by rehabilitation clinicians and researchers to assess disability experienced by adults living with HIV.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".