Development and validation of the Pediatric Asthma kNowleDge and mAnagement (P.A.N.D.A) questionnaires
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the validity, feasibility and reliability of the Pediatric Asthma kNowleDge and mAnagement (PANDA) questionnaires that we developed. METHODS: We developed 3 questionnaires aimed for Children, Teenagers and Parents of children living with asthma. Experts in childhood asthma reviewed the questionnaires to evaluate face and content validity with a measure of the Scale-Content Validity Index (S-CVI). Children age 7 and up and their parents participated in the feasibility and reliability assessment. Reliability was assessed by doing a test re-test, using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), for each questionnaire topic. RESULTS: Face validity was validated for the three PANDA questionnaires with a satisfactory length and comprehension level. Content validity, with a total S-CVI of 0.91, was found for the Children and Parents questionnaires. With 84 participants, the ICC were found to be higher than 0.7 with a 95%CI [0.5-0.9] for the total scores and higher than 0.5 for each topic for each questionnaire, indicating reliability. CONCLUSION: Face and content validity and reliability of the PANDA questionnaires was established, with an appropriate comprehension level and length. Other types of validation like construct validity and responsiveness would need to be assessed to complete the validation of the questionnaires. The PANDA questionnaires could be used for research and in everyday practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it