Cross-cultural adaption of the German Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: an exposure-specific measurement for back pain patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-cultural translation and psychometric testing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to examine reliability and validity of a cross-cultural adaption of the German Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) in a context of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of graded in vivo exposure in chronic low back pain patients. BACKGROUND: The QBPDS is one of the most widely used disease-specific disability questionnaires. In particular, for cognitive behavioral treatments with a clear focus on behavioral aspects such as graded in vivo exposure, the QBPDS provides an ascertained strategy with a sound conceptual basis and excellent quality criteria. Nevertheless, there is conflicting evidence concerning factor structure and a German adaption is missing. METHODS: The cross-cultural adaption followed international guidelines. Psychometric testing was performed using data from 180 participants with chronic low back pain. The psychometric analyses included internal consistency, convergent, and divergent validity. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the underlying factor structure. RESULTS: The QBPDS showed strong psychometric properties, with high internal consistency for the full scale (α=0.94) and good convergent and divergent validity. The factor analysis revealed a four-factor solution (bending, ambulation, brief effortful movements, and long-lasting postures). CONCLUSION: The translation and cross-cultural adaption of the QBPDS into German was successful. The German version proved to be a valid and reliable instrument and is well suited for use in the context of an exposure-based psychological treatment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".