Validation of the Arabic Version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Validity and reliability of a back pain questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: This study tested the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QDS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: QDS is a questionnaire widely used to evaluate the level of disability in patients with low back pain. The questionnaire has been translated into Arabic but not tested in an Arabic population. METHODS: A total of 148 patients with nonspecific low back pain were recruited in the Gaza Strip. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire booklet containing the Arabic version of the QDS, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and a Likert scale, which was repeated 1 week later. Weighted κ was used to measure test-retest reliability and Cronbach α for internal consistency. For construct validity, the Arabic version of the QDS and the ODI were correlated with Spearman correlation coefficient. For concurrent validity, the QDS, ODI, and NPRS were compared. For face and content validity, a Likert scale was used to assess whether it was understandable and comprehensive. RESULTS: The QDS demonstrated good test-retest reliability κ = 0.86-0.98 (P < 0.001). Correlation between the items was excellent Cronbach α = 0.92; item-total correlation was good = 0.84-0.86. A positive relationship was found between Arabic versions of QDS, ODI, and NPRS, indicating adequate construct validity (P = 0.69, P < 0.01). A positive relationship was found between Arabic versions of QDS and ODI (r = 0.67, P < 0.01) and the NPRS (r = 0.61, P < 0.01). Face validity and content validity were deemed to be reasonable. CONCLUSION: The study showed that the psychometric properties of the original QDS have been preserved when translated into Arabic and can be used to measure disability in Arabic societies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".