Validation of a Cystic Fibrosis Medication Knowledge Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low adherence to cystic fibrosis (CF) treatment is associated with poor health outcomes, while knowledge of the disease and medication regimen can positively influence adherence. This study’s purpose was to develop and validate a questionnaire to help determine CF medication knowledge of pediatric patients and caregivers. Our questionnaire had 37 items: 22 selected-response and 15 open-response questions. We used validation processes from the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. CF experts analyzed validity evidence based on content. Then, the questionnaire was field tested with 17 pediatric patients and 18 caregivers. The correlation between age and medication knowledge was medium ( r = .33), but was not significant ( P = .189). Cronbach’s α for the overall test was .84. Participants thought the questionnaire was important and suitable, with a few minor suggestions to improve wording. Strong validity evidence indicates the questionnaire could be used to assess medication knowledge and allow more personalized education to improve adherence.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".