Translation, validation and reliability of the functional capacity questionnaire Haemophilia Activities List for haemophilia patients in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To date, none of the available assessment instruments to evaluate functional abilities for individuals with haemophilia has been translated and validated in Brazil. AIM: To translate, and test the construct validity, internal consistency and the reliability of the Haemophilia Activities List (HAL) for the Brazilian population with severe and moderate haemophilia (type A or B) and to investigate differences in the self-perception of functional abilities in patients adults with haemophilia classified according to the presence of joint bleeding and the performance of orthopaedic surgeries. METHODS: The translation and transcultural adaptation following the steps: (a) translation; (b) synthesis (consensual version); (c) back-translation; (d) review by the committee of experts; (e) pretest in the target population; and (f) final version of the instrument. Correlations between HAL scores and the scores of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were determined for construct validation. Reliability was tested using the test and retest method, and internal consistency was calculated by Cronbach's α. RESULTS: The HAL-BR was applied to 52 individuals with haemophilia (34.51 ± 12.87 years). The process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation produced similar versions between the translations A moderate correlation was observed between HAL and the HAQ (r = -0.55) and WOMAC scores (r = -0.58). The reliability was ICC = 0.972, CI (0.917-0.997) ICC = 0.876, CI (0.631-0.978) for inter- and intra-examiners. No difference was found in the total HAL score between the groups with and without bleeding. The group subjected to surgery compared to the group of not subjected to surgery presented in the HAL domains worse function in 'lying down/sitting/kneeling/standing', 'self-care' and 'complex lower extremities activities' as well as in total HAL score. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian version of the HAL was proven to be a valid and reliable evaluation tool for adults with haemophilia in Brazil.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".