Measurement properties of the childhood bladder and bowel dysfunction questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The childhood bladder and bowel dysfunction questionnaire (CBBDQ) was previously found feasible, structurally valid, with good internal consistency. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the remaining measurement properties according to the COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Methods A prospective cohort study among parents of children aged 5–12 years was conducted. Calculated were the area under the curve (AUC) (criterion validity, responsiveness, interpretability) and intra‐class correlation coefficients (ICCagreement) (construct validity and test−retest reliability). Results One hundred and seventy‐two parents were included from March 2019 to April 2021. Correlating the bladder subscales of the CBBDQ with the Vancouver symptom score for dysfunctional elimination (VSSDES) and proxy‐reported pediatric incontinence quality of life (p‐PinQ) showed convergent validity (ICCsagreement: 0.76 and 0.74). Divergent validity was found when correlating the bowel subscales of the CBBDQ with the VSSDES (ICCagreement: 0.52). Excellent criterion validity (AUC: 0.98); excellent test−retest reliability (ICCagreement: 0.94) and, at 6 months, fair responsiveness (AUC: 0.74) were found. The minimal important change was 4.5, with cut‐off value of 11. Conclusion The CBBDQ has been developed according to COSMIN standards. The items were defined using the consensus‐based ICCS standards and Rome‐III criteria. The measurement properties were identified using enough participants. Although interpretability is not considered a measurement property, interpretability aspects are reported here as they refer to what instrument scores mean. The 18‐item‐CBBDQ met the measurement properties of validity, reliability, and responsiveness, as defined by COSMIN. The CBBDQ is suitable for self‐administration by parents, and completion takes little time.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".