Italian Version of the Laval Questionnaire: Validity and Reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Scope: Morbid obesity is complicated by the presence of depression and poor quality of life. Bariatric surgery aims at improving quality of life of obese persons, as well as reducing mortality and medical risk factors. Quality of life assessment is important in clinical care planning, as well as in the evaluation of surgical outcomes. The Laval questionnaire has been specifically developed for patients with morbid obesity, but has never been validated into Italian; we aimed to produce an Italian version, in a population of patients scheduled for bariatric surgery. Methods: We conducted a multicenter observational study on a nonrandomized sample of patients (age 19–65 years), with morbid obesity and body mass index (BMI) ≥35, candidates for bariatric surgery (gastric banding or gastric bypass). Cronbach's alpha and factor analysis were used to assess internal consistency and structure. Results: One hundred sixty-three patients were enrolled, mean BMI of 42.8 ± 7.5 kg/m2 (range 31–70). Excellent consistency (alpha >0.90) and concurrent validity with the Obesity-related Well Being Scale (ORWELL's) questionnaire (ρ = −0.78, p < 0.001). Factor analysis confirmed the six domains of the scale, all with good factor loadings (>0.75). Conclusion: In conclusion, we can state that the Italian version of the Laval questionnaire is valid and reliable for assessing quality of life in patients waiting for bariatric surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".