Translation of Revised Version of Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ’07) into Kannada – Results of Validation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The revised version of Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ’07) is a widely used parent-reported screening tool for DCD. The tool is not available in any Indian language. This article reports on the results of the cross-cultural validation of DCDQ’07 into Kannada, a South Indian language.Methods: The questionnaire was first translated into Indian English to overcome differences in phraseology between Canadian and Indian English (DCDQ’07-IE). Following this, forward translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, and pre-testing of the translated version were conducted to obtain the Kannada version of the questionnaire (DCDQ’07-K). Minor examples, in keeping with local usage, were added.160 parents were recruited, among whom 80 were parents of children with motor difficulties and 80 were parents of children without motor difficulties. They rated their children on DCDQ’07-IE. After a washout period of 2 weeks, the same parents once again rated their children on DCDQ’07-K.Statistical analysis for reliability, construct validity, and Rasch diagnostics (person and item reliability, fit statistics, category functioning of scores and person-item map) were conducted.Results: Internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha>0.8), parallel form test-retest reliability (ICC=0.95 at 95% CI) and floor and ceiling were acceptable. Principal component analysis (PCA) showed three factors accounting for total variance of 59.29% and 58.80% in DCDQ’07-IE and DCDQ’07-K respectively. Item reliability (<0.8) and separation index (<2) were poor in both versions. Category functioning was effective. Person-item map represented inconsistency in spread of items in difficulty and person’s abilities. Qualitative review of the parents revealed that they were unfamiliar with the performance of their children on sports-related items and hence scored their child on the basis of conjecture.Conclusion: Translation into Kannada was fairly successful. Although traditional tool properties produced satisfactory results, Rasch analysis demonstrated problems with the tool. This could be due to cultural reasons. Hence DCDQ’07-K should be interpreted with caution when rated by parents in the local context.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it