The Neck Pain and Disability Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-cultural adaptation of an outcome questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to cross-culturally adapt the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD) for the German language, and to assess its psychometric qualities. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck pain and its associated disability represent an extremely common musculoskeletal problem. Reliable and valid questionnaires for its assessment are available in English, but no German versions of these exist. METHODS: The English version of the NPAD was translated into German (NPAD-D) and back-translated according to established guidelines. Twenty-three patients with chronic neck pain completed the NPAD-D twice over 1 to 2 weeks, to assess its test-retest reliability. A further 80 patients [40% male, mean (SD) 54 (18) years] completed the questionnaire and underwent a clinical follow-up examination, 1 to 14 years after C1-C2 fusion. These patients also documented their satisfaction with the surgery. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha values (internal consistency) for the NPAD-D whole scale and for the NPAD-D subscales pain, disability, and neck-specific function were 0.97, 0.95, 0.97, and 0.87, respectively. The ICC for the test-retest reliability of the NPAD-D was excellent (0.97) and the SEM was relatively low (3.8), giving a "minimal detectable difference" for the scale of 10.5 (scale range is 0-100). The range of motion in rotation, assessed during the clinical examination, correlated significantly with the scores on NPAD-D item 16 (stiffness of neck) (Rho = -0.52, P < 0.0001) and item 17 (trouble turning neck) (Rho = -0.59, P < 0.0001). Range of motion in flexion-extension correlated significantly with the scores on item 18 (trouble looking up and down) (Rho = -0.60, P < 0.0001) and item 19 (trouble working overhead) (Rho = -0.45, P < 0.0001). The NPAD-D scores differed significantly between patients who were satisfied with the result of their operation and those who were not [mean values 36.4 (SD 24.3) and 58.1 (SD 27.4), respectively; P = 0.008]. CONCLUSION: The NPAD-D is a reliable and valid patient-orientated instrument for use in future studies of neck pain and disability in German speaking patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".