Construct Validity of the Physical Function Scale of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire for the Measurement of Walking Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Measurement (validity) study using data from a prospective longitudinal study of lumbar spinal stenosis. OBJECTIVE: Provide convergent and divergent validity evidence for the use of the Physical Function Scale of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire for the measurement of walking capacity in persons with lumbar spinal stenosis. We were also interested in the association between the Physical Function Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Physical Function Scale has been used to assess walking capacity in persons with lumbar spinal stenosis; however, there have been limited studies investigating its psychometric properties. No validity studies have compared the Physical Function Scale and the ODI head to head. METHODS: The Physical Function Scale was correlated with the ODI, Health Utilities Index, Centres for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Medical Outcomes Survey Social Support Scale, and an additional item from the Oxford Claudication Score. RESULTS: As hypothesized, the Physical Function Scale was correlated highly with those instruments and items intended to measure walking capacity and minimally with those instruments intended to measure different constructs. The correlation between the Physical Function Scale and the ODI was r = 0.719. CONCLUSION: Results support construct validity of the Physical Function Scale for the measurement of walking in an lumbar spinal stenosis population. However, it cannot be ascertained from the current study that the construct being measured is, indeed, walking capacity. Further research is warranted to investigate criterion validity evidence for the use of the Physical Function Scale in the measurement of walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis, by examining the relationships between self-report and observational measures of walking.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".