Spanish translation, cultural, and content validation of the Mouth Impairment and Disability Assessment in a prospective, longitudinal evaluation of pediatric patients with facial burn injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mouth Impairment and Disability Assessment (MIDA) was developed to provide clinicians with an outcome measure that thoroughly and objectively evaluates the impairment and disabilities associated with burn injuries of the face involving the mouth. However, thus far, it is only available in English and French-Canadian and has not been used with pediatric burn survivors. Additionally, there is limited longitudinal outcome data describing the recovery trajectory associated with burn injuries of the mouth. Thus, the purpose of this study was to translate the MIDA into Spanish, validate the content with the pediatric burn survivor population who have sustained a burn injury involving their mouth, and prospectively collect data to document the recovery profile and examine the psychometric properties. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational case series of pediatric burn survivors. Prior to commencing patient recruitment, a forward-backward translation and cultural adaptation process was undertaken to create a Spanish version of the MIDA. English- and Spanish-speaking pediatric burn survivors who met the inclusion criteria and had signed the informed consent were evaluated using the MIDA at approximately one month, three months, six months, and 12 months post-burn. Individual and subscale summary data from the MIDA are reported. Construct validity was assessed by examining the correlations between MIDA subscale scores at baseline and measures of vertical and horizontal mouth opening. RESULTS: Sixteen predominantly Hispanic (75 %) pediatric burn survivors were evaluated approximately one-month post-burn, eleven were evaluated at three and six months, and nine at twelve months. The majority were male (62.5 %) with a mean age of 10.4 years old and mean total body surface area burn of 33.3 %. The median number of surgeries was two, with a median of one involving the face, mouth, or neck. Content validity was confirmed through cognitive debriefing and self-reported difficulties with all items within the measure at various points across time. The recovery profile varied across time, with many reporting a reduction in function between one and three months, most reporting an improvement by six or twelve months, but some continuing to experience extreme difficulty or dissatisfaction at twelve months. DISCUSSION: The Spanish version of the MIDA can now be used with the burn survivor population to evaluate the outcome of face and neck burns that may result in mouth impairment and disability. In addition, it proved to be a valid measure for quantifying the challenges that arise for pediatric burn survivors. There is a need for future research to investigate which treatment interventions optimize long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".