Cultural Adaptation and Testing of the Italian Version of the Edmonton Functional Assessment Tool-2 (EFAT2-I)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physiotherapy in Palliative Care (PC) is effective in the management of a series of respiratory, circulatory and motor symptoms, and often has a positive impact on the patient's mood. The Edmonton Functional Assessment Tool (EFAT) is the only existing validated tool specifically designed for functional assessment in PC, and its use has been recommended in clinical practice. To date, no Italian version of the tool has been validated. The aim of this study was to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the EFAT2. METHOD: After receiving formal permission from the author, Beaton guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation were followed, namely: (1) forward translation; (2) a multidisciplinary focus group (including 4 physiotherapists, 1 physician, 3 nurses, 1 occupational therapist, 1 psychologist) to assess semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalence; (3) backward translation. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was used to assess content validity of the tool. Construct and concurrent validity were also evaluated. To evaluate the reliability of the EFAT2-I, reliability was measured using Cronbach alfa, item-total correlation, and Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: 119 patients admitted to a Palliative Care Unit (Italy) agreed to participate in the study. The EFAT2-I mean score was 11.3, ranging from 0 to 30. Very good CVI scores were achieved, both in terms of single item validity (I-CVI) and of whole scale validity (S-CVI). Positive results were obtained from construct, concurrent validity assessment and measures of reliability. DISCUSSION: The EFAT2-I showed good psychometric properties and can be used as a rehabilitation assessment tool in palliative care settings. The validation of the Italian version will allow comparison of different centres and palliative care facilities on national and international levels.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".