Reliability and validity of the PAD questionnaire: A measure to assess pain-related decline in physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the reliability and validity of the physical activity decline (PAD) score: a measure for assessing a decline in the level of physical activity in patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: This study was embedded in a prognostic cohort study based on an inception cohort of patients with sub-acute low back pain. PATIENTS: Sixty-two patients who developed chronic pain participated in this study. METHODS: Internal consistency was expressed by Cronbach's alpha and the test-retest reliability was based on an intraclass coefficient (ICC) score. Construct validity was determined using a Pearson correlation coefficient with disability (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale), a change in physical activity level (DeltaBPAQ) as external criteria for convergent validity. The level of physical activity (Physical Activity Rating Scale) was used as external criterion for discriminant validity. RESULTS: The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92) and reliability (ICC = 0.93) of PAD were shown to be good. The construct-validity of the PAD questionnaire appeared to be adequate, with Pearson coefficients of r = 0.45 (p < 0.01; a change in BPAQ), r = 0.55 (p < 0.01; disability) and r = 0.03 (p = 0.74; physical activity). Based on the fact that 38.7% of the patients had the lowest score of 0, the presence of a floor-effect in the PAD score must be considered. CONCLUSION: The reliability and validity of the PAD questionnaire in its original Dutch version appears to be good. Further research is warranted regarding the presence of a floor-effect.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".