Validation of the Brazilian Version of CADE-Q II to Assess Knowledge of Coronary Artery Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Coronary Artery Disease Education Questionnaire (CADE-Q), an instrument aimed at assessing patients' knowledge about coronary artery disease (CAD), was originally developed and psychometrically validated in Brazil. It was later translated, cross-culturally adapted, and validated to English. Although both versions demonstrated good reliability and validity, new studies in the area have pointed out the need of implementing the CADE-Q with other components of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs, such as psychologic factors, which had not been considered in previous version and were added in the subsequent, adapted version. Thus, a second version of CADE-Q was developed in English, the CADE-Q II. OBJECTIVE: to translate, culturally adapt and psychometrically validate the CADE-Q II in Brazilian Portuguese. METHODS: After translation and review by a Committee of specialists in CR, a version in Brazilian Portuguese was generated and tested in 307 patients in CR. Test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in 49 patients; internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha (α); and, criterion validity was assessed regarding patients' educational level and family income. The level of significance adopted for all tests was 5%. RESULTS: After the ICC analysis, 4 items were excluded. The questionnaire was considered internally consistent (α > 0.7). Associations were found between the mean total scores and the variables schooling (p < 0.001) and income (p < 0.001). Median total score was 53 (14) points corresponding to 65.4% of the total possible score. CONCLUSION: The Portuguese version of the CADE-Q II showed sufficient reliability, consistency and validity, supporting its use in future studies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".