Validation of the Tswana Versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Quebec Disability Scale and Waddell Disability Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of reliable and valid outcome measures inclinical research as well as clinical practice is very important. Selfreported questionnaires are widely used as outcome measures to assessthe subjective perception of disability caused by low back pain (LBP).The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Quebec DisabilityScale (QDS) and Waddell Disability Index (W DI) have been identifiedas reliable and valid instruments for assessing disability caused by LPBin English speaking patients. The fact that we do not yet have a validatedand published version of the RMDQ, QDS and W DI in a local SouthA frican language was the motivation to undertake this study. The threequestionnaires were translated, back-translated and tested in a final version for use with Tswana speaking subjects. The questionnaires were tested on one hundred respondents, who metthe inclusion criteria, at five hospitals in Tswana speaking areas. Of the one hundred respondents 31 were retested 24 hours later. The Visual A nalogue Pain Intensity Scale (VA S-Pain) and Disability Rating Index (DRI) were used ascorrelation tools. There was moderate correlation between the RMDQ and the DRI (0.74) and the W DI and the DRI(0.63). The correlation between the QDS and DRI was strong (0.85). The RMDQ, QDS and W DI correlated moderatelywith the VA S-Pain (0.63, 0.68 and 0.74, respectively). The RMDQ, QDS and W DI appeared to be internally consistentscales with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.92, 0.95 and 0.75, respectively. The RMDQ, QDS and W DI showed excel-lent test-retest reliability with intra-class correlation coefficient values of 0.93, 0.91 and 0.84, respectively. The resultssuggest that the Tswana versions of the RMDQ, QDS and W DI validated in this study are easy to understand, validand reliable instruments for the measurement of functional disability caused by LBP in a Tswana speaking population.Therefore these translated instruments may be useful clinical instruments for collecting standardised data on activitylimitations resulting from LBP in a Tswana speaking population.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".