Validation of the Simplified Chinese Version of the Functional Rating Index for Patients With Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-cultural translation and psychometric testing of the functional rating index (FRI). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the adapted simplified Chinese FRI (SC-FRI) for patients with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The FRI is a reliable and valid instrument to assess the perception of function and pain for patients with LBP. However, there is no culturally adapted, reliable, and validated FRI for use in mainland China. METHODS: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation were performed following international guidelines. The SC-FRI was administered to 115 patients with LBP along with the simplified Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index, 36-item short form health survey, and the visual analogue scale. Psychometric testing included internal consistency, test-test reliability, concurrent criterion validity, and construct validity. RESULTS: A high completion rate of 96% and no floor or ceiling effects were noted for the SC-FRI. The internal consistency was good (i.e., Cronbach α = 0.897 for the overall SC-FRI; range, 0.851-0.890, if an item was deleted). Test-retest reliability was excellent, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.948 (95% confidence interval, 0.917-0.968). Concurrent criterion validity assessment demonstrated that the SC-FRI significantly correlated with the visual analogue scale (r = 0.852, P < 0.0001) and the simplified Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index (r = 0.958, P < 0.0001). Construct validity was confirmed by the significant Pearson correlation between the SC-FRI and physical functioning (r = -0.802, P < 0.0001), Bodily Pain (r = -0.698, P < 0.0001), social functioning (r = -0.573, P < 0.0001), role-physical (r = -0.503, P < 0.0001), and general health (r = -0.502, P < 0.0001) domains of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. CONCLUSION: The SC-FRI showed excellent reliability and validity in the evaluation of pain and the functional health status of Chinese-speaking patients with LBP. It is simple and easy to use and can be recommended in clinical and research practice in mainland China.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".