- Poster presentation
- Open Access
Exploring the ceiling effect of the revised Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire in a European patient sample
© Groen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
- Published: 15 September 2008
- Public Health
- Interquartile Range
- Response Option
- Patient Sample
- Categorical Response
The original version of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ30orig) suffers from a ceiling effect and hence has reduced clinical validity . The effect of adding eight more demanding items and a new continuous response option (CATII) was tested.
Twenty-four children with JIA  were recruited from eight centres across Europe. Demographic, clinical, and CHAQ data were obtained. Five different score calculations were applied: the original method (CHAQ30orig), and the mean item scores for the 30 and 38-question versions with two categorical response options (Chaq30item CAT I and II and Chaq38item CAT I and II).
Descriptive statistics were calculated and CHAQ-data were tested for normality. A ceiling effect was defined by 15% or more patients scoring the best possible score.
(preliminary, based on 30% of total data).
Median, ceiling effect, KS results, and interquartile range of five CHAQ scoring methods.
Ceiling effect (%)
The CHAQ38 with CATII scoring showed best overall distribution characteristics: no ceiling effect, more normally distribution, and the second largest IQR. (In September 2008 final results are presented).
- Lam C, Young N, Marwaha J, Mc Limont M, Feldman BM: Revised Versions of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) Are More Sensitive and Suffer Less From a Ceiling Effect. Arthritis & Rheumatism (Arthritis Care & Research). 2004, 51: 881-889. 10.1002/art.20820.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Petty RE, Southwood TR, Manners P, Baum J, Glass DN, Goldenberg J, He X, Maldonado-Cocco J, Orozco-Alcala J, Prieur AM: International League of Associations for Rheumatology classification of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: second revision, Edmonton, 2001. J Rheumatol. 2004, 31: 390-392.PubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd.