Development of a Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Oswestry Disability Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Translation, revision, back-translation, and 3-way validity were performed. Objective. The objective of this study was to translate a version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) into Brazilian Portuguese and evaluate its reliability. Summary of Background Data. Reports in the literature have identified a need for internationally standardized and reliable measurements to analyze back pain. The ODI has become one of the principal outcome measurements used in the management of spinal disorders. Methods. The cross-cultural adaptation was performed according to the internationally recommended methodology, using the following guidelines: translation, back-translation; revision by a committee, and pretesting. The psychometric properties were evaluated by administering the questionnaire to 120 subjects with back pain. Reliability was estimated through stability and homogeneity assessment. The validity was tested comparing ODI scores with the following measurements: Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, SF-36, and a Numerical Pain Scale. Results. Good internal consistency was found (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87). Intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was 0.99. The ODI showed moderate correlation with pain measurement (r = 0.66). Relatively high correlation was also found between the ODI and the Roland-Morris scores (r = 0.81). There was significant correlation (P < 0.001) between ODI scores and the 8 scales of the SF-36. Conclusions. The data showed that the cultural adaptation process was successful and that the adapted instrument demonstrated having excellent psychometric properties, reliable in the Brazilian culture. The objective was to translate a version of the Oswestry Disability Index into Brazilian Portuguese and evaluate its reliability. Cross-cultural adaptation was performed. Reliability was estimated through stability and homogeneity assessment. The validity was tested comparing Oswestry scores with the following measurements: Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, SF-36, and a Numerical Pain 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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".