Validity and Reliability of the Indonesia version St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) is a measuring tool to assess the quality of life of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or various respiratory disorders. This study aimed to assess whether The Indonesian version of SGRQ was valid and reliable for subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: The Indonesian version of SGRQ was analyzed using a correlation test between SGRQ and sixminute walk distance (6 MWD) for validity. The reliability test was done using the test re-test reliability test by Spearman’s rank correlation, and Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency. Results: Twenty-two patients eligible COPD patients were included in this study. There is a correlation between SGRQ’s component and 6MWD on activity (r= 0.49), impact (r= -0.58) and total SGRQ (r=-0.56). The SGRQ re-measurement test shows a strong correlation on the symptom (r = 0.76), activity (r = 0.58), impact (r = 0.51), total (r=0.58) and Wilcoxon test result shows there were no significantdifferences among subscales except total value p = 0.049. High internal Cronbach’s alpha consistency was approximately 0.73 to 0.86. Conclusion: The Activities and Impacts of Indonesian version of SGRQ component provides a picture of the validity to functional capacity. The Indonesia version of SGRQ is also proven to have good repeatability with high internal consistency.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".