Validation of the pelvic floor inventories Leiden (PelFIs) in English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the English translation of an interviewer-administered pelvic floor questionnaire, the "Pelvic Floor Inventories Leiden" (PeLFIs) for women, which addresses complaints of prolapse, bladder, and bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor pain and/or sexual dysfunction related to pelvic floor dysfunction. METHODS: The formal forward-backward translation of the PeLFIs was performed by bilingual Dutch/English translators. The final English version was administered to healthy volunteers (N = 94) and patients (N = 180) in Canada and the United States. Psychometric properties of the English version were examined, including internal consistency, test-retest reliability, content, and construct validity. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients. Construct validity was established by comparing scores in healthy volunteers and patients (using t-tests) and by intercorrelating domains. RESULTS: The forward-backward translation of the English version of the PeLFIs was consistent with the original Dutch questionnaire. In total, 274 questionnaires were administered. The retest was administered 2 weeks after the initial PeLFIs interview. Internal consistency of the questionnaire was 0.88 for the total scale. Cronbach's alpha of the domains ranged from 0.71 to 0.95. For the test-retest reliability, the agreement rate between the two tests exceeded 95% and the intraclass correlation ranged from 0.6 to 0.8. The differences between healthy volunteers and patients were statistically significant for all domains, but did not exceed the minimal important difference for some domains. Correlations between the domains were moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: The PeLFIs questionnaire has been translated successfully into English and in its evaluation has shown adequate internal consistency and reliability.
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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".