Validation of the pedHAL<sub>short</sub> and HAL<sub>short</sub> in Dutch children and adults with haemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The Haemophilia Activities List (HAL) and paediatric HAL assess self‐reported limitations in various daily activities. To reduce patient burden, shorter versions of the pedHAL (22 items) and HAL (18 items) have been developed. Aim This study aimed to determine the agreement between the pedHAL/HALfull and pedHAL/HALshort and construct validity and internal consistency of the pedHAL/HALshort in persons with haemophilia (PWH). Methods A cross‐sectional secondary analysis of the Hemophilia in the Netherlands‐6 national survey was performed. Adult and paediatric PWH completed the original pedHAL/HALfull, from which pedHAL/HALshort were derived. Score differences between the original and short versions were calculated. Construct validity was studied by testing hypotheses regarding the relationship of the pedHAL/HALshort with the pedHAL/HALfull, Haemophilia & Exercise Project Test‐Questionnaire (HEP‐Test‐Q), Canadian Haemophilia Outcomes‐Kids’ Life Assessment Tool (CHO‐KLAT) and RAND 36‐item Health Survey (RAND‐36) (convergent/discriminant validity) as well as its ability to discriminate between subgroups (known‐group validity). Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's α. Results We included 113 children (median 10y [range 4–17], 53% severe haemophilia) and 691 adults (median 51y [range 18–88], 35% severe). Scores of the pedHAL/HALfull and pedHAL/HALshort were similar with high correlations (>0.9). Construct validity was confirmed for the pedHAL/HALshort. The HALshort was able to discriminate between different disease severities and ages. Cronbach's α of the pedHAL/HALshort was 0.95–0.97. Conclusion This study confirmed the agreement between the pedHAL/HALfull and the pedHAL/HALshort and the construct validity of the pedHAL/HALshort. The next step is to study construct validity of the pedHAL/HALshort when administered as short forms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".