Translation into Portuguese, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of “The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer—Quality of Life Questionnaire—Bone Metastases-22”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to conduct a cross-cultural adaptation (with translation into Brazilian Portuguese) and validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire-Bone Metastases-22 (EORTC QLQ-BM22). METHODS: Ninety-five bone metastasis patients (31 men and 64 women, mean age 58.36±8.90 years) took part in the investigation. The translation guide of the EORTC was used to translate from English into Brazilian Portuguese and adapt the instrument culturally. The reliability and the face, content and construct validities were tested. RESULTS: Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha for the total score, pain and functional subscales of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 (0.93, 0.86, 0.90). Reliability was analyzed by Pearson's correlation and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The correlations were higher than the recommended value of 0.75, which indicated good test-retest reliability. Construct validity was demonstrated by correlation with the questionnaire medical outcome study questionnaire 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). It showed significant correlation between the fields of QLQ-BM22 and the SF-36 (P≤0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC QLQ-BM22 was translated into Brazilian Portuguese, was culturally adapted and was proven to be reliable, with face, content and construct validity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".