Inter-rater Reliability, Construct Validity, and Feasibility of the Modified “Which Health Approaches and Treatments Are You Using?” (WHAT) Questionnaires for Assessing the Use of Complementary Health Approaches in Pediatric Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to test the inter-rater reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of the modified “Which Health Approaches and Treatments Are You Using?” (WHAT) questionnaires in pediatric oncology. Methods: A sample of parent-child dyads was invited to complete self- and proxy-report modified WHAT, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, demographics, a diary of child recent use of CHA, and a questionnaire assessing aspects of feasibility. Parents were also asked to complete a satisfaction of children’s use of CHA survey. Results: Twenty-four dyads completed the study. The mean weighted kappa showed strong inter-rater reliability (k=0.77, SE=0.056); and strong agreements between the modified WHAT and the diary (self-report [k=0.806, SE=0.046], proxy-report [k=0.894, SE=0.057]). Significant relationships were found only between recent and non-recent CHA users in relation to easy access to CHA (self-report [p=0.02], proxy-report [p<0.001]). The mean scores of the feasibility scale (out of 7.0) for the self- and proxy-report were 5.64 (SD=0.23) and 5.81 (SD=0.22), respectively, indicating the feasibility of the modified WHAT. Conclusions: The findings of this study provide initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the modified WHAT questionnaires and their feasibility in assessing child CHA use and initiating clinical discussions about CHA with children and their parents. Further research is needed to test the theoretical relationships and to further explore the validity and reliability of the modified WHAT.
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 | 0.093 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".