Parent IMPACT‐III
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to validate the parent-proxy IMPACT-III (IMPACT-III-P) in a sample of youth diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Parent-proxy report measures are standard for pediatric psychosocial assessment, and the IMPACT-III-P will provide a more comprehensive representation of HRQOL. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted. METHODS: Parents (N = 50) of youth 8 to 17 years with IBD reported on their child's HRQOL (IMPACT-III-P and PedsQL-4.0) and depression (BASC-2); youth reported on their HRQOL (child IMPACT-III), pain interference (PROMIS Pain Interference), and disease symptoms; and physicians completed measures of disease activity. RESULTS: Criterion validity was established as the IMPACT-III-P was strongly, positively associated with the PedsQL (r = 0.59, P < 0.001). Convergent validity was supported as higher IMPACT-III-P scores were associated with less pain interference (r = -0.41, P < 0.01) and lower depression (r = -0.41, P < 0.01). Discriminant validity was partially supported, as higher IMPACT-III-P scores were associated with lower child-reported symptoms (r = -0.41, P < 0.01), but scores did not differ based on inactive, mild, or moderate/severe disease activity groups as rated by physicians. Internal consistency, parent-child agreement, and item-level analyses revealed strong reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT-III-P demonstrated strong validity and reliability. Parents and children had similar reports of HRQOL, with parents rating child HRQOL slightly lower. Findings support the use of the IMPACT-III-P for youth 8 to 17 years old to use in accordance with the child IMPACT-III to provide valuable information regarding HRQOL in youth with IBD.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".