Translation and Validation Study of Chinese Versions of the Neck Disability Index and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. This study's design was a cross-cultural validation of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS). Objective. To translate and validate Chinese versions of the NDI and the NPDS. Summary of Background Data. The widely used NDI and NPDS scales have not been translated and validated for Chinese-speaking patients with neck pain. Methods. The translation and cultural adaptation of the original questionnaires were carried out in accordance with the published guidelines. A total of 125 patients with neck pain participated in the study. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire booklet including the NDI, the NPDS, the SF-36, and a visual analog scale (VAS) of pain. To determine the test-retest reliability, 45 patients were asked to complete the questionnaire booklet a second time within 48 hours of the first completion. Results. The Cronbach α coefficient for the NDI was 0.89, and those for the 3 subscales of the NPDS were found to be satisfactory (0.91, 0.88, and 0.82, respectively). The NDI and the NPDS subscales showed excellent test-retest reliability (the intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.86 to 0.95; P < 0.01). The correlation between the NDI and the NPDS subscales and functional scales of the SF-36 showed desirable results, indicating a good convergent validity (Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from −0.19 to −0.76). The correlation between the NDI and the VAS was 0.75, and that between the NPDS subscales and the VAS ranged from 0.62 to 0.76 (P < 0.01). Conclusion. The Chinese versions of the NDI and the NPDS are reliable and valid instruments to measure functional status in Chinese-speaking patients with neck pain in China. They are simple and easy to use, and can now be applied in clinical settings and future outcome studies in China and other Chinese-speaking communities. This study demonstrated adequate translation, cultural adaptation, and validity of Chinese versions of the Neck Disability Index and the Neck Pain and Disability Scale. Chinese versions of the questionnaires showed acceptable test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and good convergent validity. The results of the study suggest that the 2 scales are suitable for use in clinical and research applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".