Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the canadian haemophilia outcomes-kids’ life assessment tool (the cho-klat)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is encouraged to assess the multidimensional impact of treatments and disease and to improve care in boys with hemophilia (BwH). However, validated HRQoL tools for BwH are not yet available for Turkish. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Canadian Hemophilia Outcomes-Kids’ Life Assessment Tool (CHO-KLAT), version 2.0, which is multilingual valid tool, in Turkish. Methods: The procedure included 4 steps: linguistic translation, content validity, validity evaluation with the Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL), finally test-retest analysis for reliability assessment. The participants were questioned for the type and severity of hemophilia, medical treatment, and inhibitor status. Results: The primary Turkish version of the CHO-KLAT evolved with the cooperation of the Canadian and Turkish teams. Content validity was performed with 9 experts and latest version of Turkish CHO-KLAT was produced. This multicenter study was conducted with 53 BwH aged 4-18 for validity assessment, 52 BwH for test-retest reliability. The mean age of BwH was 11.6 (standard deviation (SD): 4.2). The means of CHO-KLAT and PedsQL were 64.1 (SD: 4.2) and 66.7 (SD: 15.3). As a result of the validity evaluation, a strong correlation was found between CHO-KLAT and PedsQL (r = 0.603; P < .001). The interclass correlation coefficient was 0.887 in the test-retest reliability. Conclusion: The Turkish version of CHO-KLAT 2.0 was validated. It is now available to be used in clinical studies for HRQoL assessment of Turkish BwH. © 2024 AVES. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".