The Cross-Cultured Validity and Reliability of the Vietnamese Nijmegen Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Nijmegen Questionnaire assesses hyperventilation syndrome (HVS), but a validated Vietnamese version is lacking. This study investigates the cross-culture validity, structural validity, and reliability of the Vietnamese Nijmegen questionnaire (VNQ) for screening HVS in primary healthcare settings. METHODS: Following Beaton's guidelines, translation and adaptation involved two independent expert panels for content validity. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) examined the VNQ's structure. Reliability was assessed via Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman analysis, and linear regression. RESULTS: Content validity was excellent (all I-CVIs > 0.79 and all S-CVIs > 0.8). EFA revealed a four-factor structure, including the original three NQ factors and a new "psychology" factor, confirmed by CFA. Cronbach's alpha and ICC values exceeded 0.7 and 0.8, respectively, indicating good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Bland-Altman analysis showed low systematic error, and linear regression revealed no proportional bias (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The VNQ demonstrates excellent content validity, acceptable structural validity, and reliable psychometric properties for HVS screening in primary healthcare settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".