Validation of a French‐Canadian Version of the Pain Disability Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties of the Index de l'incapacité reliée à la douleur, a French-Canadian version of the Pain Disability Index (PDI). METHODS: A total of 176 chronic pain patients (94 women, 82 men) completed the French-Canadian version of the PDI (PDI-CF), as well as other pain-related measures. A subset of 52 patients (27 women, 25 men) also completed a lifting task designed to assess physical tolerance and pain behaviour. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis of the PDI-CF supported the two-factor structure of the original PDI. Reliability analyses revealed that the PDI-CF total score had a high degree of internal consistency, comparable with the original PDI. The PDI-CF total score was significantly correlated with self-reported pain, pain catastrophizing, depressive symptoms, fear of movement or (re)injury, lift duration and pain behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the PDI-CF is a reliable and valid measure of self-reported disability that is psychometrically similar to the original scale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".