The Quebec Questionnaire of Representations related to Work Disability (QRWoD): Cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability in French chronic low back pain workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Addressing chronic low back pain (cLBP) from the point of view of representation allows better understanding the behaviors associated with it and thus improve its medical and socio-occupational management. The Quebec Questionnaire of Representations related to Work Disability (QRWoD) proposes an evaluation of 9 dimensions of the cLBP-related representation. OBJECTIVE: To translate and adapt the QRoWD to French language and assess its validity and reliability in French cLBP workers on prolonged sick leave. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted from March 2017 to April 2018 in the Department of occupational health of the University Hospital of Angers, France. The QRWoD is a self-administered questionnaire (87 items) which assesses Identity, Acute/Chronic duration, Consequences, Personal Control, Treatment Control, Cyclical Timeline, Coherence, Emotional Representation and Causes dimensions. The Internal consistency (Cronbach's α) and the convergent validity (Pearson correlations) in comparison to validated instruments for each dimension were assed. RESULTS: Fifty French workers (29 men, 43 ± 9.1 years, 293.6 ± 173.0 days of work absence) were included. The internal consistency (all α> 0.7) and the convergent validity (all r2> 0.25, p< 0.01) of each dimension were very satisfactory except for the Cyclical Timeline dimension. CONCLUSIONS: The French version of the QRoWD seems to be valid and relevant among the target population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".