Development of a French-Canadian Version of the Oswestry Disability Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-cultural translation and psychometric testing. OBJECTIVE: To translate, culturally adapt, and validate the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) version 2.0 for the French-Canadian population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many authors have recommended the administration of standardized instruments, rather than the creation of new scales, and advocate the adaptation of validated questionnaires in other languages. The application of these scales in different countries and by cultural groups necessitates cross-cultural adaptation. Many scales evaluate the functional incapacity resulting from low back pain. The ODI is among the most commonly used for this purpose. METHODS: The French-Canadian ODI (ODI-FC) was developed by cross-cultural adaptation following internationally recommended methodology: forward translation, back translation, expert committee revision, and clinical evaluation of the prefinal version. Psychometric testing was performed on 72 patients with chronic low back pain. The subjects were recruited from a physiatry department in a university hospital and from a private practice physiatry clinic. They came from the Montreal area. The psychometric testing included internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) with a time interval set at 48 hours, and construct validity, comparing the ODI-FC with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (Pearson correlation coefficient). RESULTS: In 44.4% of the subjects, the average duration of low-back pain varied between 1 and 5 years. Average score for the ODI-FC was 29.2. Good internal consistency was found (Cronbach α = 0.88). Reliability was excellent, with intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.95). Construct validity results revealed excellent correlations between the ODI and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (r = 0.90) and between the ODI and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (r = 0.84). CONCLUSION: Cross-cultural translation and adaptation of the ODI-FC were successful. Psychometric testing determined that the instrument was homogeneous, reliable, and valid. It could be employed in future clinical trials in Canada and possibly in other French-speaking countries.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".