Parent‐Reported Outcome Questionnaire for Swallowing Dysfunction in Healthy Infants and Toddlers: Construction and Content Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is limited epidemiological information on swallowing dysfunction (SwD) in otherwise healthy infants and toddlers (OHITs). Cost, invasiveness, expertise, and resources constrain the repeatability and utility of instrumental diagnostic tests. A parent-reported outcomes (PRO) tool has the potential to mitigate these disadvantages. Hence, we set out to develop and validate a novel PRO tool to assess SwD in OHITs. STUDY DESIGN: A mixed-method study. SETTING: Tertiary pediatric center. METHODS: We recruited parents of OHITs with SwD and excluded those with a confounding diagnosis (syndromes or neurological impairment). Interviews were conducted and thematically analyzed to extract the relevant domains and items. A similar analytical method was performed on the reports from a systematic review and literature search. Four verification sessions of parents and experts were conducted to maintain rigor. A panel of experts assessed and established the content validity of the items using a modified Delphi technique. RESULTS: We achieved information saturation after interviewing 10 parents and generated 7 domains with 72 items. Over the course of 3 rounds of modified Delphi content validation, the domains were reduced to 3 (swallowing, breathing, and illness) containing 21 items; a content validity index of 82.1% was achieved. CONCLUSION: We validated the content of a new PRO instrument to assess SwD in OHITs. The instrument is composed of 3 primary domains representing 21 items. This tool has the potential to screen for swallowing dysfunction and can assess management outcomes specifically for this population at a community level.
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 | 0.032 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".