Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the HIV Disability Questionnaire among adults living with HIV in the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional self-report measurement study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ) among people living with HIV (PLHIV) in London, United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional measurement study. We recruited and administered the self-reported HDQ, seven criterion measures, and a demographic questionnaire with adults living with HIV accessing HIV care. We determined median and interquartile ranges (IQR) for disability presence, severity and episodic scores (range 0-100). We calculated Cronbach's alpha (α) Kuder-Richardson-20 (KR-20) statistics for disability and episodic scores respectively (internal consistency reliability), smallest detectable change (SDC) for each HDQ severity item and domain (precision), and tested 36 a priori hypotheses assessing correlations between HDQ and criterion scores (construct validity). RESULTS: Of N = 243 participants, all were male, median age 40 years, 94% currently taking antiretroviral therapy, and 22% living with ≥2 concurrent health conditions. Median HDQ domain scores ranged from 0 (IQR: 0,7) (difficulties with day-to-day activities domain) to 27 (IQR: 14, 41) (uncertainty domain). Cronbach's alpha for the HDQ severity scale ranged from 0.85 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.80-0.90) in the cognitive domain to 0.93 (95%CI: 0.91-0.94) in the mental-emotional domain. The KR-20 statistic for the HDQ episodic scale ranged from 0.74 (95%CI: 0.66-0.83) in the cognitive domain to 0.91 (95%CI: 0.89-0.94) in the uncertainty domain. SDC ranged from 7.3-15.0 points on the HDQ severity scale for difficulties with day-to-day activities and cognitive symptoms domains, respectively. The majority of the construct validity hypotheses (n = 30/36, 83%) were confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: The HDQ possesses internal consistency reliability and construct validity with varied precision when administered to males living with HIV in London, UK. Clinicians and researchers may use the HDQ to measure the nature and extent of disability experienced by PLHIV in the UK, and to inform HIV service provision to address the health-related challenges among PLHIV.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".