The Danish child and parent Gait Outcomes Assessment List questionnaires were reliable and valid for cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We investigated the reliability and validity of the Danish child and parent versions of the Gait Outcomes Assessment List (GOAL) questionnaires for ambulatory children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS: Translation and cultural adaptations were performed and content validity evaluated. Participants were enrolled between 2016 and 2018 from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Children and parents completed the GOAL questionnaires twice for test-retest reliability. Discriminative validity was evaluated by comparing the child and parent GOAL scores between children with Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels I and II. The concurrent validity of the GOAL questionnaires were investigated by comparing them with Challenge-20, which assesses motor skills in children with CP. RESULTS: We studied 59 children (57% boys) with CP and GMFCS I-II at a mean age of 10.6 years. Test-retest intra-class correlations were excellent for the children (0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.96) and good for the parents (0.83, 95% CI 0.67-0.91). GOAL scores decreased with increasing GMFCS (p < 0.05). Both versions correlated well. The mean children's scores were significantly (6.2/100) higher than the parents' (p < 0.001). The GOAL scores correlated positively with Challenge-20. CONCLUSION: The Danish GOAL child and parent questionnaires demonstrated good reliability and content and discriminative and concurrent validity.
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".