A comparison study of the back pain functional scale and Roland Morris Questionnaire. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the measurement properties of the Back Pain Functional Scale (BPFS) are superior to the Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RMQ). METHODS: The BPFS and RMQ were administered on multiple occasions to 153 patients with low back pain attending physical therapy. Eleven Canadian clinics and 8 American clinics participated in the study. Ceiling effects, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, cross sectional discriminant validity, and sensitivity to change were investigated. Error estimates in scale points were obtained. RESULTS: A ceiling effect was noted for 6 patients' RMQ scores compared to 3 patients' BPFS scores. Internal consistency for the RMQ and BPFS were 0.87 and 0.93, respectively. The error (95% CI) for a patient's score was +/- 15.5% of the scale range for the RMQ and +/- 10.5% for the BPFS. The test-retest reliability was 0.79 for the RMQ and 0.82 for the BPFS. The error associated with a patient's change score (95% CI) was 27.7% of the scale range for the RMQ and 22.2% for the BPFS. The measures showed similar levels of discriminant validity with respect to physical findings, work status, and education level. The BPFS was more adept at detecting different amounts of change in patients with back pain of less than 2 weeks' duration compared to patients with back pain of 2 or more weeks' duration. CONCLUSION: The BPFS is a competitive functional status measure for patients with low back pain.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".