Establishing content validity of LIMB-Q Kids: a new patient-reported outcome measure for lower limb deformities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To establish the content validity of LIMB-Q Kids, a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for children with lower limb deformities. This study focused on three key components of content validity, i.e., comprehension, comprehensiveness, and relevance. METHODS: Cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) with children with lower limb deformities were performed, and expert input from parents and clinicians directly involved in the care of children with lower limb deformities was obtained. CDIs were conducted with children from sites in Australia, Canada, and the USA. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analyses were conducted using the reparative approach, which involved close examination of the transcribed interviews and summarising edits after each interview. RESULTS: Forty patients, experts, and parents reviewed LIMB-Q Kids and provided feedback. At the start, LIMB-Q Kids had 10 scales and 124 total items. Five rounds of input was obtained from children, parents, and experts. Overall, 37 new items were added. Thirty-three of the new items were included to measure symptoms experienced in different parts of the legs. Final version of LIMB-Q Kids had 11 scales and 159 items. CONCLUSION: This study established content validity of the LIMB-Q Kids, a new PROM for children with lower limb deformities. An international field-test study is underway. Translation and cultural adaptation are underway for sites where English is not the first language. Scoring algorithms will be developed, following which the scale could be used to inform clinical practice and research.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".