Translation, cross‐cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Brazilian Portuguese version of Activity Scale for Kids questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Activity Scale for Kids (ASK) assesses the physical disability of children (5 to 15 years old) with neurological, orthopaedic or rheumatic diseases. The objective of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the ASK for Brazilian Portuguese and assess the validity and reliability of the instrument. METHODS: A total of 67 children and adolescents with musculoskeletal, neurological or rheumatic diseases participated in the study. We evaluated the comprehension of the pre-final version of the questionnaire in 24 participants and reliability and validity in the other 43 participants. The translation and adaptation of ASK to Brazilian Portuguese followed guidelines from previous studies. The validity of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the ASK was verified through Spearman's correlation with the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ Version 4.0 (PedQL). Intraclass correlation coefficient verified inter- and intra-evaluator reliability, while internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Scores were used to assess the standard error of the mean and minimal detectable change. RESULTS: The Brazilian Portuguese version of the ASK presented excellent reliability, internal consistency, agreement and moderate correlation with PedsQL (0.522, P < 0.001) between ASK performance and PedsQL; 0.537, P < 0.001 between ASK capacity and PedsQL. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian Portuguese version of the ASK has good validity and reliability and may be used by professionals and researchers to assess the functioning of children and adolescents with disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".