Clinimetric testing of the comprehensive cervical dystonia rating scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to test the clinimetric properties of the Comprehensive Cervical Dystonia Rating Scale. This is a modular scale with modifications of the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (composed of three subscales assessing motor severity, disability, and pain) now referred to as the revised Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Scale-2; a newly developed psychiatric screening instrument; and the Cervical Dystonia Impact Profile-58 as a quality of life measure. METHODS: Ten dystonia experts rated subjects with cervical dystonia using the comprehensive scale. Clinimetric techniques assessed each module of the scale for reliability, item correlation, and factor structure. RESULTS: There were 208 cervical dystonia patients (73% women; age, 59 ± 10 years; duration, 15 ± 12 years). Internal consistency of the motor severity subscale was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha = 0.57). Item to total correlations showed that elimination of items with low correlations (<0.20) increased alpha to 0.71. Internal consistency estimates for the subscales for disability and pain were 0.88 and 0.95, respectively. The psychiatric screening scale had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.84 and satisfactory item to total correlations. When the subscales of the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Scale-2 were combined with the psychiatric screening scale, Cronbach's alpha was 0.88, and construct validity assessment demonstrated four rational factors: motor; disability; pain; and psychiatric disorders. The Cervical Dystonia Impact Profile-58 had an alpha of 0.98 and its construction was validated through a confirmatory factor analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The modules of the Comprehensive Cervical Dystonia Rating Scale are internally consistent with a logical factor structure.
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".