Convergent validity, ceiling, and floor effects of the English-ISYQOL against established quality of life questionnaires (SRS-22r and SAQ) and curve angles in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scoliosis significantly impacts Quality of Life (QOL). Current quality of life questionnaires for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) have limitations. A new questionnaire for measuring QOL in AIS called the Italian Spine Youth Quality of Life (ISYQOL) has been developed to address these limitations but the English translation has not yet been validated. To determine the ceiling and floor effects, and the convergent validity of the ISYQOL questionnaire against established QOL questionnaires and Cobb angle in AIS. One hundred consecutive females with AIS, (10-18 years old), treated non-operatively. The English translation of the ISYQOL was compared to the following established questionnaires: Scoliosis Research Society-22r and the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire. The participants were 100 females (13.89+/-1.8 years) with 28.75+/-13.9° curve angles. The convergent validity of the ISYQOL score (60.3+/-12.44) was supported by significant correlation with the SRS-22r total score, function, pain, self-image, and mental health scores (r = 0.70, 0.54, 0.57, 0.52 and 0.50, respectively), and with the SAQ general, waist, and expectations domains (r = -0.6. -.52, and -0.56, respectively). Correlation with the Cobb angle was (r = -.37)(see Table 1). No ceiling effect was observed in the ISYQOL. Ceiling effects were observed for the SRS-22r and the SAQ. The ISYQOL demonstrated evidence of convergent validity. This study supports its suitability for QOL research in AIS. ISYQOL appears more likely to detect changes in evaluative studies than the SRS- 22r and the SAQ.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".