Validation de la version française du Questionnaire de Bournemouth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self questionnaires are an important aspect of the management of neck pain patients. The Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQ), based on the biopsychosocial model, is designed to evaluate patients with neck pain. The validated English version of this questionnaire (BQc-English) has psychometric properties that range from moderate to excellent. The goal of this study is to translate and validate a French version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire for neck pain patients (BQc-f). Its translation and adaptation are performed using the translation back-translation method, generating a consensus among the translators. This validation study was performed on 68 subjects (mean age 41 years old) who participated in a randomized controlled trial regarding the efficiency of manual therapy for neck pain patients. This experimental protocol was designed to generate data in order to evaluate the construct validity, longitudinal validity, test-retest reliability and responsiveness. The BQc-f psychometric properties of construct validity (r = 0.67, 0.61, 0.42) for pre treatment, post treatment and longitudinal validity, respectively), test-retest reliability (r = 0.97) and responsiveness (effect size = 0.56 and mean standardized response = 0.61) are sufficient to suggest it could be used in the management of patients with neck 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 | 0.048 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".