Development and Psychometric Testing of Korean Language Versions of 4 Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Cohort study. Objectives. To develop and establish the psychometric properties of Korean versions of 4 neck pain and disability questionnaires: the Neck Disability Index, Neck Pain and Disability Scale, Functional Rating Index, and Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SFMPQ). Summary of Background Data. To our knowledge, there are no published Korean language neck pain and disability measures. Methods. Versions of each questionnaire in idiomatic modern Korean were developed with a process involving initial independent translation, synthesis of the translations, independent back translation, and review by an expert committee to achieve equivalence with the original English. Psychometric testing of the questionnaires with 261 subjects was undertaken to examine test-retest reliability, internal consistency, discriminative validity, and longitudinal construct validity. Results. Test-retest reliability of the translated versions of the 3 disability questionnaires was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient[2,1] = 0.86–0.90). High internal consistency was found in the 3 disability questionnaires (Cronbach-α ranged from α = 0.88 for the Functional Rating Index to α = 0.96 for the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, and 0.82 for the SFMPQ). The visual analog scale subscale of the SFMPQ was the most responsive of the subscales (effect size = 1.44, standardized response mean = 1.37). The visual analog scale was also the most responsive pain and disability index in internal responsiveness analysis, although disability indexes showed marginally better responsiveness when compared with external standards. No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Conclusions. We conclude that the questionnaires were successfully translated and show acceptable measurement properties, and, as such, are suitable for use in clinical and research applications. The versions of 4 neck pain and disability questionnaires in idiomatic modern Korean were developed, and psychometric testing of the questionnaires with 261 subjects was undertaken to examine test-retest reliability, internal consistency, discriminative validity, and longitudinal construct validity. The questionnaires were successfully translated and show acceptable measurement properties, and, as such, are suitable for use in clinical and research applications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".