MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131926027 · doi:10.5334/gh.912

Validation of the Chinese Version of the Coronary Artery Disease Education Questionnaire – Short Version: A Tool to Evaluate Knowledge of Cardiac Rehabilitation Components

2021· article· en· W3131926027 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Heart · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaMedicineIntraclass correlationConfirmatory factor analysisCoronary artery diseaseContent validityContext (archaeology)Exploratory factor analysisRehabilitationPhysical therapyCriterion validityTest (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)ValidityConstruct validityPsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal medicineStatisticsStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patient education is the first step in implementing a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program and a powerful tool for promoting behavioral changes in cardiac patients. In China, the clinical workload is so heavy that a short and reliable tool for assessing disease-related knowledge is needed for targeted patient education. Objective: The aim of this study was to translate, adapt and validate the Chinese version of the Coronary Artery Disease Education Questionnaire - Short Version (CADE-Q SV). Methods: The CADE-Q SV was translated to simplified Chinese and culturally adapted to the Chinese context. The translated version was reviewed by a committee of seven experts in cardiovascular disease, and the content validity of the questionnaire was established. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were analyzed considering the responses of 240 CR patients. The Kuder-Richardson-20 (KR-20) coefficient and Cronbach's alpha were used to assess internal consistency. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess test-retest reliability. The criterion-related validity was evaluated by determining whether there were differences in the total scores of patients with different educational levels. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the factor structure. Results: Three items from the original version were adapted to reflect Chinese culture. The content validity index was 0.94. The KR-20 score was 0.856. All ICC values were > 0.70. The knowledge scores of patients with different educational levels were significantly different, indicating that the criterion-related validity of the Chinese CADE-Q-SV was acceptable. CFA validated the five-factor structure of the Chinese CADE-Q-SV. Conclusion: The Chinese CADE-Q SV questionnaire has good reliability and validity. This short, efficient tool can be completed quickly, assess disease-related knowledge in cardiovascular patients and serve as a reference for individualized patient education in China. It can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of CR-related patient education interventions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it