Test–Retest Reliability and Construct Validity of the German Translation of the Gait Outcome Assessment List (GOAL) Questionnaire for Children with Ambulatory Cerebral Palsy
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
Abstract The Gait Outcome Assessment List (GOAL) is a patient or caregiver-reported assessment of gait-related function across different domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) developed for ambulant children with cerebral palsy (CP). So far, the questionnaire is only available in English. The aim of this study was to translate the GOAL into German and to evaluate its reliability and validity by studying the association between GOAL scores and gross motor function as categorized by the gross motor function classification system (GMFCS) in children with cerebral palsy (CP). The GOAL was administered to primary caregivers of n = 91 children and adolescents with CP (n = 32, GMFCS levels I; n = 27, GMFCS level II; and n = 32, GMFCS level III) and n = 15 patients were capable of independently completing the whole questionnaire (GMFCS level I). For assessing test–retest reliability, the questionnaire was completed for a second time 2 weeks after the first by the caregivers of n = 36 patients. Mean total GOAL scores decreased significantly with increasing GMFCS levels with scores of 71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.90–74.77) for GMFCS level I, 56 (95% CI: 50.98–61.86) for GMFCS level II, and 45 (95% CI: 40.58–48.48) for GMFCS level III, respectively. In three out of seven domains, caregivers rated their children significantly lower than children rated themselves. The test–retest reliability was excellent as was internal consistency given the GOAL total score. The German GOAL may serve as a much needed patient-reported outcome measure of gait-related function in ambulant children and adolescents with CP.
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 | 0.000 | 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