New Feeding Assessment Scale for individuals with genetic syndromes: Validity and reliability in the <scp>CHARGE</scp> syndrome population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To develop a feeding scale for parents/care givers of individuals of all ages with genetic syndromes experiencing extensive feeding and swallowing problems. Second, to assess its validity and reliability in CHARGE syndrome. METHODS: The new Feeding Assessment Scale (FAS) was adapted from a scale for children who need prolonged tube feeding (Paediatric Assessment Scale for Severe Feeding Problems, PASSFP). Ten parents piloted the new scale before it was sent out with the PASSFP and feeding history questions. A subset completed the new scale again 4-8 weeks later. RESULTS: One hundred parents of individuals with CHARGE syndrome participated from around the world. The new scale had good construct validity, with a significant effect for an increased number of feeding risk factors having higher scale scores (P < 0.001). Face validity was high, as scores significantly differed between individuals whose parents identified their feeding difficulties as very mild, mild, moderate, severe and very severe (P < 0.001). Test-retest reliability (r = 0.94, P < 0.001) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.91) were both high. There was significant convergent validity between the new scale and the PASSFP (r = -0.79, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This new tool is reliable and valid for parents/care givers of individuals with CHARGE syndrome. It can be used to assess the current severity of feeding difficulties and to track progress before and after treatment. It expands upon previous existing tools in that it can be used in both individuals who are not tube fed, as well as in those who are, as well as across the life-span.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".