French Canadian translation and the validity and inter-rater reliability of the ISTAP Skin Tear Classification System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To adapt the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP) skin tear classification system into French Canadian, and to test the content validity and inter-rater reliability of the translated version. METHOD: Phase one included the translation of the ISTAP skin tear classification system into French Canadian, using a forward-back translation method. Following this the translated version was tested for content validity and inter-rater reliability with registered nurses from a French acute care hospital in Ottawa, Canada. RESULTS: The French Canadian translation of the ISTAP skin tear classification system was evaluated by 92 nurses without in-depth wound care training. The adapted version obtained a substantial level of agreement between users, (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.69). CONCLUSION: The study tested the content validity and inter-rater reliability of the French Canadian version of the ISTAP skin tear classification system. The results support previous studies and further validate the classification system as a reliable method for classifying skin tears. The study supports ISTAP's goal of establishing a global language for describing and documenting skin tears.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".