OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative discriminant validity of 3 new versions of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) and to determine the relative concordance between children and their parents. METHODS: The parents of 48 children with musculoskeletal disability and 101 nondisabled controls were given the CHAQ and the 3 revised versions in random order. Children older than 5 years also completed the questionnaires. RESULTS: All 3 new versions of the CHAQ were more sensitive at differentiating patients from controls (relative efficiency 1.35-1.65); the versions with 8 added items were even more sensitive (relative efficiency 1.79-2.32). The new versions of the CHAQ suffered less from a ceiling effect and were more normally distributed. Concordance between children and parents was moderate to high for all versions. CONCLUSION: Researchers and clinicians should consider using a revision of the CHAQ. By being more sensitive at differentiating patients, the revised versions of the CHAQ will allow fewer subjects to be studied and will be more able to detect differences between patients in the clinic.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative discriminant validity of 3 new versions of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) and to determine the relative concordance between children and their parents. METHODS: The parents of 48 children with musculoskeletal disability and 101 nondisabled controls were given the CHAQ and the 3 revised versions in random order. Children older than 5 years also completed the questionnaires. RESULTS: All 3 new versions of the CHAQ were more sensitive at differentiating patients from controls (relative efficiency 1.35-1.65); the versions with 8 added items were even more sensitive (relative efficiency 1.79-2.32). The new versions of the CHAQ suffered less from a ceiling effect and were more normally distributed. Concordance between children and parents was moderate to high for all versions. CONCLUSION: Researchers and clinicians should consider using a revision of the CHAQ. By being more sensitive at differentiating patients, the revised versions of the CHAQ will allow fewer subjects to be studied and will be more able to detect differences between patients in the clinic.
Authors: Tonya M Palermo; Anna C Long; Amy S Lewandowski; Dennis Drotar; Alexandra L Quittner; Lynn S Walker Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2008-04-22
Authors: Alshimaa R Azab; FatmaAlzahraa H Kamel; Maged A Basha; Saud M Alrawaili; Ghfren S Aloraini; Sahar M Hassan; Najlaa F Ewais; Ragab K Elnaggar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: W Groen; E Unal; M Nørgaard; S Maillard; J Scott; K Berggren; E Sandstedt; M Stavrakidou; J van der Net Journal: Pediatr Rheumatol Online J Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 3.054
Authors: Sabrina Gmuca; Rui Xiao; Timothy G Brandon; Ilaria Pagnini; Tracey B Wright; Timothy Beukelman; Esi M Morgan; Pamela F Weiss Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Jessika W Ouwerkerk; Philomine A van Pelt; Tim Takken; Paul Jm Helders; Janjaap van der Net Journal: Pediatr Rheumatol Online J Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 3.054
Authors: Nívea M O Morales; Carolina A R Funayama; Viviane O Rangel; Ana Cláudia Frontarolli; Renata R H Araújo; Rogério M C Pinto; Carlos H A Rezende; Carlos H M Silva Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: W Peter Bekkering; Rebecca ten Cate; Marion A J van Rossum; Theodora P M Vliet Vlieland Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: G J F Joyce Bos; Otto T H M Lelieveld; Wineke Armbrust; Pieter J J Sauer; Jan H B Geertzen; Pieter U Dijkstra Journal: Pediatr Rheumatol Online J Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 3.054