Validation of the Chinese Version of the Coronary Artery Disease Education Questionnaire – Short Version: A Tool to Evaluate Knowledge of Cardiac Rehabilitation Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".