MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901828639 · doi:10.1007/s00167-018-5302-y

Validation of the French version of the KOOS-child questionnaire

2018· article· en· W2901828639 on OpenAlexaff
Éliane Rioux Trottier, Marie Beauséjour, Stéphanie Lamer, Peter Glavas, Guy Grimard, Marie‐Lyne Nault

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire is one of the frequently used outcome scores in pediatric studies. However, a recent study demonstrated that the pediatric population had a limited understanding of some of its questions. Therefore, the KOOS-Child questionnaire was developed specifically for this population. Our team produced a French adaptation based on the English version. The objective of the current study was to validate the French adaptation of the KOOS-Child questionnaire. METHODS: After ethic board approval, the questionnaire was translated from English to French by two French speaking orthopedic surgeons. Following consensus, the translated version was retranslated to English by a professional translator. A group of experts compared the original and back translated version and decided on a final adapted questionnaire version. Ninety-nine 8-16 year-old patients were prospectively recruited from our pediatric orthopedic surgery clinic. Twenty-one control participants and 78 patients suffering from knee pain were recruited. The participants were asked to answer the translated French version of the KOOS-Child questionnaire and two validated French pediatric quality of life surveys. RESULTS: Statistical analysis demonstrated no statistically significant demographic difference between the control population and the patients suffering from a knee pathology. The mean for the five different domains of the KOOS-Child questionnaire showed statistical differences (p < 0.001) between the two groups. Construct validity was demonstrated through testing of previously validated hypothesis of correlation. Internal consistency was also confirmed in injured patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the current study results demonstrate good to excellent internal consistency, good construct validity and inconclusive discriminant capacity of the French adaptation of the KOOS-Child questionnaire. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207