Measurement equivalence of the newly developed Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy Questionnaire (<scp>QOLCE</scp>‐55)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine measurement equivalence of the newly developed Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy Questionnaire (QOLCE-55) across age, sex, and time in a representative sample of children with newly diagnosed epilepsy. METHODS: Data come from 373 children enrolled in the Health-related Quality of Life in Children with Epilepsy Study (HERQULES), a multisite prospective cohort study. Measurement equivalence was examined using a multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis framework, whereby increasingly stringent parameter constraints are imposed on the model. Comparison groups were stratified based on age (4-7 years vs. 8-12 years), sex (male vs. female), and time (measurement of health-related quality of life at diagnosis vs. 24 months later). RESULTS: The QOLCE-55 demonstrated measurement equivalence at the level of strict invariance for each model tested--age: χ(2) (3,123) = 4,097.3, p < 0.001; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.968; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.042 (0.038, 0.045); sex: χ(2) (3,124) = 4,188.3, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.964; RMSEA = 0.044 (0.040, 0.047); and time: χ(2) (3,121) = 5,185.0, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.965; RMSEA = 0.046 (0.043, 0.048). SIGNIFICANCE: These findings suggest that items comprising the QOLCE-55 are perceived similarly among groups stratified by age, sex, and time and provide further evidence supporting the validity of the scale in children with epilepsy. Health professionals and researchers should be confident that group comparisons made using the QOLCE-55 are unbiased and that any group differences detected are meaningful; that is, not related to differences in the interpretation of items by informants. Future research replicating these findings is encouraged.
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 | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".