Back

Longitudinal Measurement Properties of the Participation Questionnaire for Preschoolers: Reliability, Responsiveness, and Interpretability

Nakamura, T.; Koshio, I.; Maruyama, S.; Ikeda, K.; Nagayama, H.; Sasada, S.

2024-12-16 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2024.12.13.24318179 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability of the Preschool Questionnaire for Participation (PQP), a tool for assessing participation in preschool children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). MethodsA cohort study was conducted with data collected at four time points over six months from children with ASD aged 51-75 months. Test-retest reliability was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for 275 participants who completed the study. Responsiveness was examined by analyzing correlations between changes in PQP scores and changes in multiple scales based on four predefined hypotheses. To assess interpretability, the Global Rating of Change (GRC) Scale was used as an anchor to analyze receiver operating characteristic curves and estimate the minimal important change (MIC). ResultsICCs ranged from 0.80 to 0.92 for individual factors and reached 0.93 for the total score. Three of the four hypotheses for responsiveness were supported within the expected range. However, the correlation between the GRC Scale and changes in PQP scores was below 0.3, preventing MIC calculation. ConclusionWhile the MIC could not be calculated, the PQP demonstrated test-retest reliability equivalent to or better than existing participation measures. Given the limited verification of responsiveness for other tools, the PQPs strong longitudinal reliability and validity provide a foundation for future research.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.