ArticleRevista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo2026
Validation of a Brazilian version of the Checklist for Assessment of Gender Disadvantage (CAGED) in adolescents.
Article in Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo validate and culturally adapt a Brazilian version of the Checklist for Assessment of Gender Disadvantage (CAGED) for girls, boys, and gender-diverse adolescents, and determine the optimal cutoff point.
methodsThe original instrument, designed to assess perceptions of gender inequity among girls, was validated alongside a version for boys and gender-diverse people through seven stages: translation, synthesis, back translation, expert evaluation, pre-testing with 29 adolescents, re-evaluation, and clinical validation with 459 adolescents. To assess perceived gender discrimination, in addition to the original binary response options (yes/no), three alternative responses were tested to clarify whether "it never happened" or "it happened but does not bother me". The Content Validation Index (CVI) was calculated, with scores ≥0.80 indicating acceptable agreement. The scale's reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, with a threshold of ≥0.70 indicating good internal consistency. The Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20) was used as the gold standard to construct a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and determine the optimal sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff point for the CAGED.
resultsThe translation demonstrated excellent agreement, with all CVIs exceeding 0.80. The Cronbach's alpha in the pre-test was 0.97. Both response formats proved adequate, with CVIs of 0.83 for the binary and 0.79 for the three-response alternatives. The cutoff point with the highest sensitivity (72.08%) and specificity (82.61%) was 4. The area under the ROC curve was 0.823.
conclusionsThe CAGED was successfully translated and culturally adapted for Brazilian adolescents, showing high internal consistency and clarity.
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.