ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Psychometric properties of the Hebrew KIDSCREEN 52, 27 and 10 items: a cross-sectional study of self and parents reports in youth with and without physical disabilities.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Children's rights and needs during war: the case of adolescents in Israel.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe KIDSCREEN health related quality of life (HRQoL) measures have not been validated in Hebrew and are under-studied in youth with physical disabilities. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Hebrew KIDSCREEN-52, 27, and 10, in self-report and parent versions, among youth with and without physical disabilities.
methodsYouth (ages 10-18) with and without physical disabilities, and their parents, completed the KIDSCREEN questionnaires. Disability-related data were collected using the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI), along with psychological evaluations. Internal consistency was measured with Guttman's Lambada, and parent-child concordance using paired t-tests and intraclass correlation (ICC). Convergent validity was assessed with correlations and known group's and discriminative validity were tested by independent t-tests and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFI) was also conducted.
resultsThis study involved 566 child-parent dyads of youth without disabilities and 379 with disabilities, with a mean age of 12.42-13.54 years. Guttman's Lambada was acceptable (≥ 0.7) for all KIDSCREEN subscales. No significant differences were found between self- and parent-reports in the non-disability group, but parents scored lower in the disability group. ICC ranged from 0.5-to-0.90. Convergent validity was confirmed by significant associations between PEDI, psychological health and KIDSCREEN scales. Youth without disabilities reported better HRQoL than those with disabilities. The KIDSCREEN's discriminative ability ranged from very high accuracy in the self-reported KIDSCREEN-52 (AUC = 0.85) to moderate accuracy in the proxy-reported KIDSCREEN-10 (AUC = 0.683). The CFI showed overall good model fit.
conclusionThe Hebrew KIDSCREEN scales show reliability and validity but should be interpreted cautiously due to study limitations. Parent reports should only be primary when self-report isn't possible, as youth with disabilities often differ in their HRQoL evaluations. Youth without physical disabilities reported better HRQoL across multiple dimensions, highlighting the importance of evaluating HRQoL in youth with physical disabilities to address their unique needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40080335What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.