Interformat Reliability of Web-Based Parent-Rated Questionnaires for Assessing Neurodevelopmental Disorders Among Preschoolers: Cross-sectional Community Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Early detection and intervention for neurodevelopmental disorders are effective. Several types of paper questionnaires have been developed to assess these conditions in early childhood; however, the psychometric equivalence between the web-based and the paper versions of these questionnaires is unknown. Objective This study examined the interformat reliability of the web-based parent-rated version of the Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire (ASSQ), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale (ADHD-RS), Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire 2007 (DCDQ), and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) among Japanese preschoolers in a community developmental health check-up setting. Methods A set of paper-based questionnaires were distributed for voluntary completion to parents of children aged 5 years. The package of the paper format questionnaires included the ASSQ, ADHD-RS, DCDQ, parent-reported SDQ (P-SDQ), and several additional demographic questions. Responses were received from 508 parents of children who agreed to participate in the study. After 3 months, 300 parents, who were among the initial responders, were randomly selected and asked to complete the web-based versions of these questionnaires. A total of 140 parents replied to the web-based format and were included as a final sample in this study. Results We obtained the McDonald ω coefficients for both the web-based and paper formats of the ASSQ (web-based: ω=.90; paper: ω=.86), ADHD-RS total and subscales (web-based: ω=.88-.94; paper: ω=.87-.93), DCDQ total and subscales (web-based: ω=.82-.94; paper: ω=.74-.92), and P-SDQ total and subscales (web-based: ω=.55-.81; paper: ω=.52-.80). The intraclass correlation coefficients between the web-based and paper formats were all significant at the 99.9% confidence level: ASSQ (r=0.66, P<.001); ADHD-RS total and subscales (r=0.66-0.74, P<.001); DCDQ total and subscales (r=0.66-0.71, P<.001); P-SDQ Total Difficulties and subscales (r=0.55-0.73, P<.001). There were no significant differences between the web-based and paper formats for total mean score of the ASSQ (P=.76), total (P=.12) and subscale (P=.11-.47) mean scores of DCDQ, and the P-SDQ Total Difficulties mean score (P=.20) and mean subscale scores (P=.28-.79). Although significant differences were found between the web-based and paper formats for mean ADHD-RS scores (total: t132=2.83, P=.005; Inattention subscale: t133=2.15, P=.03; Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale: t133=3.21, P=.002), the effect sizes were small (Cohen d=0.18-0.22). Conclusions These results suggest that the web-based versions of the ASSQ, ADHD-RS, DCDQ, and P-SDQ were equivalent, with the same level of internal consistency and intrarater reliability as the paper versions, indicating the applicability of the web-based versions of these questionnaires for assessing neurodevelopmental disorders.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".