Psychometric validation of the Chinese version of the Edmonton-33 scale in patients with head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to translate the Edmonton-33 scale (E-33) into Chinese and evaluate its reliability and validity in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Methods: In Phase 1, the E-33 was translated from English to Chinese using the Brislin double-back translation method. Content validity was evaluated by a panel of experts, and a pilot test was conducted with a small sample of HNC patients. In Phase 2, a cohort of 510 patients from Henan and Hubei provinces was recruited. Psychometric properties were assessed through item analysis; and reliability testing (including Cronbach's alpha, test-retest reliability, and split-half reliability), as well as construct validity (using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis). Results: /df = 1.626, RMSEA = 0.048, NFI = 0.936, RFI = 0.930, IFI = 0.974, TLI = 0.972, and CFI = 0.974. Conclusions: The Chinese version of the Edmonton-33 scale (CE-33) demonstrated high reliability and validity, suggesting its potential as a valuable self-report tool for assessing functional outcomes in Chinese-speaking HNC patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".