COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF ORTHOPEDIC SCALES FOR LOW BACK PAIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the reliability, response capacity and validity of four scales for low back pain and correlate these scales with each other and the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SACQ). Methods: We evaluated the psychometric properties of four previously selected scales for low back pain: the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Quebec Back Pain Questionnaire (QBPDS), the Waddell Disability Index (WDI) and the Back Pain Functional Scale (BPFS) and Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SACQ) comorbidity scale. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. Reliability and internal consistency were measured by Cronbach's alpha. Validity was measured through correlation of the scales with the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire comorbidity scale and an analysis of the structural equations between them. Results: The scales showed adequate indicators based on the factor structure and showed Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin values above 0.90. After the exploratory factor analysis, all scales showed fit indicators suited to a factor model, following the same pattern as the original validations. Similarly, they showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha greater than .78). The only scale that showed factor loadings suggesting the exclusion of any item was the Roland-Morris. In terms of validity, the scales showed positive correlation coefficients similar to the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire and between them. Conclusion: Regarding the scales evaluated, they showed similar indications of reliability and internal consistency, such that we did not find sufficient evidence to indicate one scale over another. Level of Evidence I; Diagnostic studies – Investigation of a diagnostic test.
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 | 0.024 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".