Validity and reliability of the HIV Disability Questionnaire for people living with HIV in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study determined the measurement properties of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ) on a sample of people living with HIV (PLWHIV) to validate this assessment in a resource-limited environment. A quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional research design was used with PLWHIV on antiretroviral therapy (ART) for six months or more. Participants completed the HDQ, World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Scale (WHODAS 2.0) and the Medical Outcomes Study - Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS). Disability presence, severity and episodic scores on the HDQ were tested against the WHODAS 2.0 and MOS-SSS to determine convergent and divergent construct validity and internal consistency. Results for the HDQ were compared to four other populations from high-income countries. Of the sample of 498 participants, 68% were female, the median age was 41 years and 19% had a median of one concurrent health condition. Median HDQ scores were 24.63 for disability presence, 10.14 for disability severity and 15.94 for the episodic scale. Moderate correlations confirmed 92.8% of convergent a priori hypotheses, while 85.7% of divergent a priori hypotheses were accepted. Cronbach's alpha for the HDQ scales ranged from 0.89 to 0.84. Results from the HDQ differed from those determined in Canada, Ireland, the United States and the United Kingdom, with presence and severity scores for the South African sample being lower. Episodic scores were higher, which may be related to the socio-economic context. The HDQ is reliable and valid for disability determination and may be used as a rehabilitation outcome measure for PLWHIV in South Africa.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".