A pilot study of reliability and validity of Turkish version of West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory in patients with low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI), used in the evaluation of patients with chronic pain including behavioral and cognitive assessment, is a multidimensional pain scale consisting of three main sections and 12 subscales. The validity of this inventory has been supported by various study results of confirmatory and exploratory factor analytic procedures. The aim of our present study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish form of the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI-T). Methodology: 41 patients, with a minimum 3 mon history for chronic non-specific low back pain, without previous surgical history, neurological and rheumatic diseases, and without communication problem; completed Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) scales. The measurements were repeated in fifth days. Results: Significant difference between WHYMPI-T lower and upper group averages was found. Internal consistency analysis of the scale, Cronbach's α coefficient ranged from 0.93 to 0.99 for B and C sections. All the items of A, B and C sections were found compatible with each other in the item analyses and scale test-retest results were congruent with each other. Between WHYMPI-T subscales and BPI, MPQ, BDI, SF-36 scales, a positive correlation was observed. Conclusion: The results of our study confirm that WHYMPI-T is a valid and reliable instrument which can be used for the evaluation of chronic non-specific low back pain. Key words: West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory; WHYMPI; WHYMPI-T; Low back pain; Validity; Reliability Citation: Gulcelik GE, Malkoc M, Aysel Yildiz Ozer AY. A pilot study of reliability and validity of Turkish version of West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory in patients with low back pain. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2020;24(5): Received: 13 September 2020, Reviewed: 17 September 2020, Accepted: 23 September 2020
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".