MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062545026 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181a5605a

Psychometric Properties and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Brazilian Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale Questionnaire

2009· article· en· W2062545026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcelo Francisco Rodrigues, Edgard Michel‐Crosato, Jefferson Rosa Cardoso, Jefferson Traebert

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaIntraclass correlationBrazilian PortugueseMedicineReliability (semiconductor)Visual analogue scaleRank correlationScale (ratio)Spearman's rank correlation coefficientPhysical therapyCross-culturalCross-cultural studiesPsychometricsPortugueseClinical psychologyPsychologyStatisticsCartographySocial psychologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Cross-cultural translation and psychometric testing. Objective. To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QDS) to Brazilian Portuguese and to examine its validity and reliability. Summary of Background Data. Current literature shows the need to adopt reliable and internationally standardized methods for the analysis of low back pain. To our knowledge, this specific questionnaire has not been translated and validated for Portuguese-speaking patients. Methods. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the QDS were developed in agreement with internationally recommended methodology, and the resulting product was evaluated in this study with 54 consecutive patients. Internal consistency was obtained through Cronbach’s alpha; reliability was estimated through the intraclass correlation coefficient and the Bland and Altman agreement (JOURNAL/spne/04.03/00007632-200906010-00018/OV0458/v/2020-12-26T072856Z/r/image-png = mean difference). Validity was determined by correlating the scores of the Brazil-QDS with the Brazilian version of the Roland-Morris Questionnaire and Visual Analogue Pain Scale by means of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Results. The internal consistency obtained was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were considered strong (ICC = 0.93-JOURNAL/spne/04.03/00007632-200906010-00018/OV0458/v/2020-12-26T072856Z/r/image-png = 0.68 and 0.96-JOURNAL/spne/04.03/00007632-200906010-00018/OV0458/v/2020-12-26T072856Z/r/image-png = 0.57, respectively). The correlation with Brazilian Roland-Morris Questionnaire and with the Visual Analogue Scale was high (r = 0.857; r = 0.758, respectively). Conclusion. The data showed that the process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation were successful and that the adapted instrument demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. The Brazilian version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale Questionnaire exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach-α = 0.972), strong interobserver (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.968) and intraobserver (ICC = 0.938) reproducibility, strong correlation with the Brazil-RM (r = 0.857), and moderate correlation with the Visual Analogue Scale (r = 0.758).

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207