Farsi version of the CLEFT-Q: translation, cultural adaptation process and reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was the translation and cultural adaptation of the CLEFT-Q to Farsi and evaluating the reliability of it. METHODS: The English version of the CLEFT-Q was translated to Farsi following the guidelines set forth by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). To calculate the reliability, 50 participants filled out the Farsi version of the questionnaire twice at 2-week intervals. RESULTS: The difficulties during the translation and cultural adaptation process were as follows: 7.56% of items from the independent forward translations, 62.18% of items from the comparison between two forward translations, and 21% of items from the comparison between post-back translation and the original version. The internal consistency and stability of the Farsi version of the CLEFT-Q were 0.979 and 0.997, which both were categorized as excellent. CONCLUSION: The Farsi version of the CLEFT-Q is a valid and reliable tool currently available for Farsi-speaking families around the world.
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 | 0.026 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".