MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Translation and Validation Studies of the Iranian Versions

2006· article· en· W2004500269 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sayed Javad Mousavi, Mohamad Parnianpour, Hossein Mehdian, Ali Montazeri, Bahram Mobini

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOswestry Disability IndexVisual analogue scaleCronbach's alphaMedicineIntraclass correlationPhysical therapyLow back painBack painPersianPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychometricsClinical psychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Cross-cultural translation and psychometric testing were performed. Objectives. To cross-culturally translate the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QDS) into Persian, and then investigate the psychometric properties of the Persian versions produced. Summary of Background Data. To the authors’ knowledge, there is no validated instrument to measure functional status in Persian-speaking patients with low back pain (LBP) in Iran. To our knowledge, the widely used back-specific measures, the ODI, RDQ, and QDS, have not been translated and validated for Persian-speaking patients with LBP. Methods. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original questionnaires were performed in accordance with published guidelines. A total of 100 patients with chronic LBP were asked to complete a questionnaire booklet (the Persian versions of the ODI, RDQ, QDS, Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and visual analog scale measure of pain). There were 31 randomly select patients with chronic LBP asked to complete the second questionnaire booklet 24 hours later. Results. The Cronbach-α for the ODI, RDQ, and QDS was 0.75, 0.83, and 0.92, respectively. The ODI, RDQ, and QDS showed excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91, 0.86, and 0.86, respectively) (P < 0.01). The correlation among the ODI, RDQ, QDS and physical functioning scales of the SF-36 was −0.66, −0.62, and −0.69, respectively (P < 0.001). The correlation among the ODI, RDQ, and QDS and visual analog scale was 0.54, 0.36, and 0.46, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusions. The Persian versions of the ODI, RDQ, and QDS are reliable and valid instruments to measure functional status in Persian-speaking patients with LBP.They are simple and fast scales, and the use of them can be recommended in a clinical setting and future outcome studies in Iran. To the authors’ knowledge, there is no validated instrument to measure functional status in Persian-speaking patients with low back pain in Iran. The present study was performed to cross-culturally translate the Oswestry Disability Index, Roland Disability Questionnaire, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale into Persian, and then investigate the psychometric properties of the Persian versions produced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations436
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207