French-Canadian Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the SWAL-QOL and the SSQ and A Preliminary Psychometric Assessment for Their Use in an Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy (OPMD) Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose . Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessing dysphagia are considered an essential component of clinical trials to consider how patients feel and function in response to treatments. The selected PRO needs to be translated in several languages using a systematic process ensuring its validity and equivalence for use in multicenter clinical trials. The main objective was to conduct the French-Canadian cross-cultural adaptation of the SWAL-QOL (FC SWAL-QOL) and the SSQ (FC SSQ) among an oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD) population. Methods . The principles of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force method were followed for the FC SWAL-QOL and the FC SSQ. Cognitive interviews were conducted with 28 participants with OPMD. Known groups validity was assessed by comparison of the FC SWAL-QOL and the FC SSQ scores between groups of participants with OPMD known to differ in dysphagia severity, according to their drinking test score (n=21). Results . Equivalence issues were addressed during the cognitive interviews. Scores on the FC SSQ differed between the two groups divided by drinking test scores suggesting good known groups validity. Only two scales of the FC SWAL-QOL showed known group validity; the difference in the mean composite score was not significant, but this could be due to the small sample size. Conclusion : The SWAL-QOL and the SSQ were successfully translated into French-Canadian and adapted to an OPMD population. Additional validation should be considered depending on the intended population. The FC SSQ was better at discriminating dysphagia severity in a small sample size of OPMD participants.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".