Reliability, Validity, and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Turkish Version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Validation of a self-report questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Turkish version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Low back pain is one of the most frequent disorders leading to activity limitation. This pain affects most of people in their lives. The most important point to evaluate patient's functional abilities and to decide a successful therapy procedure is to manage the assessment questionnaires precisely. METHODS: One hundred ten patients with chronic low back pain were included in present study. To assess reliability, test-retest and internal consistency analyses were applied. The results of test-retest analysis were assessed by using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient method (95% confidence interval). For internal consistency, Cronbach alpha value was calculated. Validity of the questionnaire was assessed in terms of construct validity. For construct validity, factor analysis and convergent validity were tested. For convergent validity, total points of the Bournemouth Questionnaire were assessed with the total points of Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire by using Pearson correlation coefficient analysis. RESULTS: Cronbach alpha value was found 0.914, showing that this questionnaire has high internal consistency. The results of test-retest analysis were varying between 0.851 and 0.927, which shows that test-retest results are highly correlated. Factor analysis test indicated that this questionnaire had one factor. Pearson correlation coefficient of the Bournemouth Questionnaire with Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire was calculated 0.703 and it was found with Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale is 0.659. These results showed that the Bournemouth Questionnaire is very good correlated with Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire is valid and reliable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".