The Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) Scale: Validation of a French Cross-Cultural Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to validate the French version of the Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) scale, a condition-specific measure for bipolar disorder (BD). METHOD: The QoL.BD scale was translated into French in accordance with the recommendations for transcultural adaptation. It was administered to 125 participants with BD living in Quebec, Canada. Construct validity was evaluated through correlations with other measures of self-reported quality of life (QoL), functioning, and symptoms. Factorial structure was examined through an exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: Internal reliability and test-retest reliability standards were met. Correlations in expected directions with other QoL, functioning, and depressive symptom scales supported convergent validity. The item loadings structure of the French QoL.BD largely replicated the original English version, with some modifications. CONCLUSION: The French version of the QoL.BD (full and brief) is comparable in its psychometric properties to the English version. It is a valid and sound measure for the evaluation of the QoL of French-speaking patients with BD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".