Validation of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire in the juvenile idiopathic myopathies. Juvenile Dermatomyositis Disease Activity Collaborative Study Group.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) in patients with juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM). METHODS: One hundred fifteen patients were enrolled in a multicenter collaborative study, during which subjects were assessed twice, 7-9 months apart. Physical function was measured using the CHAQ. Internal reliability was assessed using adjusted item-total correlations and item endorsement rates. Construct validity was assessed by comparing predicted and actual correlations of the CHAQ with other measures of physical function and disease activity. Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) in a group of a priori defined "improvers." RESULTS: Item-total correlations were high (rs range = 0.35-0.81), suggesting all items were related to overall physical function. Manual muscle testing and the Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale correlated moderate to strongly with the CHAQ (r = -0.64 and -0.75, both p < 0.001). Moderate correlations were also seen with the physician global assessment of disease activity (rs = 0.58, p < 0.001), parent global assessment of overall health (rs = -0.65, p < 0.001), Steinbrocker function class (rs = 0.69, p < 0.001), and global skin activity (rs = 0.40, p < 0.001), while global disease damage and skin damage had low correlations (rs = 0.13 and 0.07, p > or =0.17). Responsiveness of the CHAQ was high, with ES = 1.05 and SRM = 1.20. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients with juvenile IIM, the CHAQ exhibited internal reliability, construct validity, and strong responsiveness. We conclude that the CHAQ is a valid measure of physical function in juvenile IIM, appropriate for use in therapeutic trials, and potentially in the clinical care of these patients.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".