Reliability and validity of the Huntington's Disease Everyday Functioning (Hi-DEF): A patient-reported measure of cognitive capacity on daily functioning in Huntington's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Huntington's Disease (HD) Everyday Functioning (Hi-DEF) is a novel patient-reported outcome (PRO) scale developed to assess the impact of cognitive impairment on daily functioning in early HD patients. Objective To examine the psychometric properties, including reliability and validity, of the Hi-DEF. Findings from psychometric analyses using classical test theory (CTT) approach are presented here. Methods A non-interventional validation study was conducted across nine HD Centers of Excellence across the US. Results Patients with HD (n = 151) were recruited: 59% were female, mean (SD) age was 47 (12) years, and mean (range) Total Functional Capacity (TFC) score was 11.4 (8–13). Excellent internal consistency reliability was observed for the Hi-DEF scale total score (Cronbach's alpha: 0.98) and across subscales (alpha range 0.87–0.96). Most targeting and scaling assumptions were met, although there were ceiling effects for three subscales. Construct validity was demonstrated by moderate to high Spearman's rank-order correlations with TFC scores (range r = −0.38 to −0.62) and known and validated measures such as the HD-PRO-TRIAD TM (range r = 0.75–0.90), and ability to discriminate between levels of functional impairment (TFC 13, 12–11, and 10–8; p < 0.001). Correlations with Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) cognitive performance measures were low to moderate and ranged from 0.06 to 0.38. Conclusions The Hi-DEF is a reliable and valid PRO scale measuring the impact of cognitive impairment on daily functioning, assessing facets of cognitive functioning in context of activities of daily living impacted in early stages of HD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".