Reliability and Validity of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ) with Adults Living with HIV in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess measurement properties of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ) among adults with HIV in the United States. METHODS: We administered the HDQ, World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS 2.0), and a demographic questionnaire. For internal consistency reliability, we calculated Cronbach α and Kuder-Richardson-20 (KR-20) statistics for disability and episodic scores, respectively (≥0.80 acceptable). For test-retest reliability, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (>0.8 acceptable). For construct validity, we tested 15 a priori hypotheses assessing correlations between HDQ and WHODAS 2.0 scores. RESULTS: Of the 128 participants, the majority were males (68%), median age 51 years, taking antiretroviral therapy (96%). Cronbach α ranged from 0.88 (social inclusion) to 0.93 (uncertainty). The KR-20 ranged from 0.86 (cognitive) to 0.96 (uncertainty). Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.88 (physical, cognitive, social inclusion) to 0.92 (mental-emotional). Of the 15 hypotheses, 13 (87%) were confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: The HDQ demonstrates internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and construct validity when administered to a sample of adults with HIV in the United States.
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".