Psychometric Evaluation of the Polish Version of the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The assessment of the quality of life is an important element of the clinical examination of the patient. The aim of this study was translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the "Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities" (CPCHILD) questionnaire into Polish language, and testing of reliability and validity of the CPCHILD-PL for children with cerebral palsy (CP). Material and Methods: A Polish version of CPCHILD was created according to internationally accepted guidelines. Parents (n=77) of 51 boys/26 girls between 3 and 17 years with CP with Gross Motor Function Classification System I-V (GMFCS I-V) participated. To assess the reliability each domain and the total measure was tested for internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating the CPCHILD-PL with the CHAQ (Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire) questionnaire. Results: Test-retest reliability assessed by Spearman correlation coefficient for the final result of CPCHILD-PL and for most of domains were above 0.90. The values of Cronbach's-α coefficient (measuring internal consistency) were high for all domains (except for domain 5: Health) and the entire CPCHILD-PL, with the range 0.88-0.96. The comparison between CPCHILD-PL and the Disability Index (DI) of the CHAQ showed a negative correlation. The higher the DI, the lower the CPCHILD result. The Spearman's rank coefficient was -0.75. Conclusion: The Polish version for the CPCHILD for children with CP seems to be reliable and valid tool for assessing health-related quality of life from the caregiver perspective. It can be used in research and clinical practice for evaluation and comparison of health-related quality of life in children with CP in different countries.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".