A Test-Retest Reliability Study of the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire in Patients With Acute Whiplash-Associated Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability and the Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) of the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire (WDQ) in individuals with acute whiplash-associated disorders (WADs). METHODS: We performed a test-retest reliability study. We included insurance claimants from Ontario who were at least 18 years of age, within 21 days of their motor vehicle collision and diagnosed as having acute WAD grades I to III. The WDQ, a 13-item questionnaire scored from 0 (no disability) to 130 (complete disability), was administered to all participants at baseline and by telephone 3 days later. We computed the intraclass correlation coefficient (model 2,1) and the MDC with 95% confidence intervals (CIs; MDC95). RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the 66 participants was 41.6 (12.7) years and 71.2% were female. Twenty-nine percent had WAD I and 71.2% had WAD II. Time since injury ranged from 0 to 19 days. The mean (SD) baseline WDQ score was 49.3 (28.8) and 46.5 (29.8) 3 days later. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the WDQ total score was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92) in the entire sample and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.69-0.93) for the 15 participants reporting no change in neck pain. The MDC95 of the WDQ was 21.4 (SD = 14.9) for participants reporting no change. CONCLUSION: The WDQ was reliable in individuals with acute WAD. There is 95% confidence that a change of approximately one-sixth of the total score is beyond the daily variation of a stable condition. This level of measurement error must be taken into consideration when interpreting change in WDQ scores.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".