Reliability and Validity of Adapted French Canadian Version of Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22) in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Prospective validation study of a cross-cultural adaptation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Outcomes Questionnaire. Objective. To provide a French Canadian version of the SRS Outcomes Questionnaire and to empirically test its response in healthy adolescents and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients in Québec. Summary of Background Data. The SRS Outcomes Questionnaire is widely used for the assessment of health-related quality of life in AIS patients. Methods. French translation and back-translation of the SRS-22 (SRS-22-fv) were done by an expert committee. Its reliability was measured using the coefficient of internal consistency, construct validity with a factorial analysis, concurrent validity by using the short form-12 and discriminant validity using ANOVA and multivariate linear regression, on 145 AIS patients, 44 patients with non clinically significant scoliosis (NCSS), and 64 healthy patients. Results. The SRS-22-fv showed a good global internal consistency (AIS: Cronbach α = 0.86, NCSS: 0.81, and controls: 0.79) and in all of its domains for AIS patients. The factorial structure was coherent with the original questionnaire (47.4% of explained variance). High correlation coefficients were obtained between SRS-22-fv and short form-12 corresponding domains. Boys had higher scores than girls, scores worsened with age, and with increasing body mass index. Mean Total, Pain, Self-image, and Satisfaction scores, were correlated with Cobb angle. Adjusted regression models showed statistically significant differences between the AIS, NCSS, and control groups in the Total, Pain, and Function scores. Conclusion. The SRS-22-fv showed satisfactory reliability, factorial, concurrent, and discriminant validity. This study provides scores in a significant group of healthy adolescents and demonstrates a clear gradient in response between subjects with AIS, NCSS, and controls. The French version of the Scoliosis Research Society Outcome Questionnaire showed satisfactory reliability, factorial structure, concurrent validity, and discriminant capacity. This study provides scores in a group of healthy adolescents and demonstrates a clear gradient in response between subjects with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, non clinically significant scoliosis, and healthy controls.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".