ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2025
Use of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory - Computer Adaptive Test in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway.
Article in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of virtual reality and robot-assisted therapy on rehabilitation outcomes in cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Use of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory - Computer Adaptive Test in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2025Article
- Predictors of Parent-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life in Young Children with Early Brain Damage and Severe Motor Dysfunction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate whether the items of the Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian versions of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory - Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT) align with the location-order used in the original algorithm and to assess their structural validity.
methodThree convenience samples without disability (0-20 years; Danish [n = 318], Dutch [n = 349], Norwegian [n = 362]) responded to the language-specific versions. Item location-order was estimated using the graded response model and structural validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis.
resultsFor most items, the item location-order was largely consistent with the location-order used in the original PEDI-CAT algorithm. Items showing a different order were primarily related to the daily activity domain. However, the confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis indicated poor model fit, multidimensionality, and local dependency. Additionally, the Rasch analysis revealed that some items were misfitting, with a few also showing signs of misfit in the original PEDI-CAT version. Few items displayed differential item functioning by sex.
interpretationThe Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian version of the PEDI-CAT can be used to measure the degree of functioning or responsibility. However, clinicians should interpret the PEDI-CAT results with caution due to evidence of multidimensionality, some misfit items, and differential item functioning by sex. Further research is warranted in a population of children and young people with disabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.