| MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES | |
| Limitations | English only |
| Observations | |
| 1. RELIABILITY | |
| A. Internal Consistency | Not Tested |
| Cronbach's (Describe) | |
| B. Reliability intraobserver or test-retest | Tested |
| Continuous scores: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) Dichotomus: Cohen kappa (Describe) |
The GISSK-Q had moderate test–retest reliability (weighted kappa 0.54, ICC = 0.60). The test–retest reliability of the GISSK-VAS was somewhat better (ICC = 0.67). The quality of parent proxy-report of the GISSK-Q and GISSK-VAS was fair to good (ICCGISSK-Q= 0.47; ICCGISSK-VAS = 0.66). |
| C. Reliability interobserver or Measurement error | Not Tested |
| Standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) or Limits of agreement (LoA) (Describe) |
|
| 2. VALIDITY | |
| A. Content validity: face validity | Not Tested |
| Expert opinion (relevance and comprehensiveness) (Describe) |
|
| B. Construct Validity: Structural validity |
Tested |
| Hypotheses-testing | Tested |
| Cross-cultural validity | Not Tested |
| Brief Description |
GI symptom severity (GISSK-VAS) was highly correlated with the GISSK-Q scores (rSpearman= 0.75; P<0.0001). Based on univariate analysis, upper abdominal pain appeared to be particularly important for patients’ perceived GI symptom severity. This was also true for dyspepsia, anorexia, and vomiting, but these symptoms occurred less frequently in the studied patients. |
| C. Criterion validity | Not Tested |
| Comparison with a 'gold standard' Continuous scores: correlations, ROC curves Dichotomus: Sensitivity & Specificity (Describe) |
|