Validity and Reliability of the Responses to Ischemic Stroke Symptoms Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prehospital delay remains an important reason for low intravenous tissue plasminogen activator administration rates. Study of ischemic stroke patients' responses to stroke onset may be hampered by lack of a questionnaire designed specifically to examine their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to symptoms. METHODS: We provide evidence for content validity and reliability for the Responses to Ischemic Stroke Symptoms Questionnaire (RISQ) through, expert panel review and calculation of a content validity index and a study to examine stability reliability among hospitalized acute ischemic stroke patients. RESULTS: Expert panel review demonstrated agreement on the relevance of questionnaire items and an overall content validity index of 0.97. The study to examine stability reliability demonstrated acceptable stability of the items on the RISQ over the short term in a sample of white and black stroke patients. CONCLUSION: Preliminary evidence was gathered to support the content validity and stability reliability of the RISQ. Study of the RISQ with other population groups is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".