Validity of the Stage of Exercise Scale in Children with Rheumatologic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the face, content, and construct validity of the Stages of Exercise Scale (SOES) in children with rheumatologic conditions [juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM)], and if the validity of the SOES differs by disease type by comparing it with a disease control with a chronic respiratory illness [cystic fibrosis (CF)]. METHODS: Sixty-seven children and adolescents (43 female) ages 11 to 18 years with a diagnosis of either JDM (n = 15), JIA (n = 39), or CF (n = 13) completed the SOES; scales of sensibility, process of change, decisional balance, and self-efficacy; the Child Health Assessment Questionnaire; and patient/physician ratings of disease severity. Physical activity was measured by an accelerometer. Relationships among SOES and measured constructs were determined by ANOVA and with logistical modeling. RESULTS: SOES, decisional balance, and self-efficacy as well as behavioral and cognitive processes from the process of change demonstrated significant differences across the staging subgroups. Disease groups did not significantly differ on the scoring across the SOES. Children and adolescents in higher stages participated in more minutes of vigorous physical activity compared with those in the lower stages. CONCLUSION: The SOES demonstrated good face, content, and construct validity in children and adolescents with rheumatic disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".