Validity and Reliability of the Pre-Adolescent Dance Injury and Participation Questionnaire (PADIP-Q)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Dancers generally begin training in a variety of styles at a young age. Across ages and levels of participation, dancers are at high risk for injury. Most available injury surveillance tools, however, have been developed for adult populations. Valid, reliable tools that monitor injury and exposure of pre-adolescent dance populations are limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of a dance injury and participation questionnaire specifically for pre-adolescent private studio dancers. Methods: Four stages of validity and reliability testing assessed a novel questionnaire: initial design based on previous literature, expert panel review, cognitive interviews, and test-retest reliability. The target population was 8 to 12-year-olds who participate in at least 1 class/week at a private studio. Feedback from a panel review and cognitive interviews was incorporated. Test-retest analyses included Cohen’s kappa coefficients and percent agreement for categorical variables, and intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs (3,1)], absolute mean difference (md) and Pearson’s correlation coefficients ( r) for numerical data. Results: The final questionnaire was comprised of 4 sections: demographics, dance training history, current dance participation (previous 1-year and 4-months), and dance-related injury history (previous 1-year and 4-months). Items with categorical responses estimated kappa coefficients from 0.32 to 1.00, and percent agreement between 81% and 100%. For items with numeric responses, ICC estimates ranged between .14 and 1.00, r values between .14 and 1.00, and the largest absolute md was 0.46. The 4-month recall sections revealed higher agreement than the 1-year sections. Conclusion: This valid pre-adolescent dance injury and participation questionnaire demonstrates good to excellent reliability across all items. To support participant completions, assistance from a parent/guardian is suggested. To move dance epidemiology research forward among private studio dancers aged 8 to 12 years, employment of this questionnaire is therefore recommended.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".