Content validity of Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire-22 revised (SRS-22r) for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: protocol for a qualitative study exploring patient’s and practitioner’s perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Content validity is the most important measurement property for any patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). It being the extent that the PROM measures important concepts that are relevant to the population of interest. Adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common spinal deformity in paediatric populations, with the Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire-22 revised (SRS-22r) a commonly used PROMof quality of life. In the absence of existing evidence, a content validity study for SRS-22r is needed to confirm its suitability for AIS. Thus, this study aims to investigate the content validity of SRS-22r for AIS. A secondary aim is to explore healthcare professional (HCP) perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to using outcome measures in AIS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Qualitative study reported according to COnsolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies. A purposive sample of AIS (n=10-15, Cobb angle >25°, aged 10-18 years) will be recruited for online semi-structured interviews. A convenience sample (n=10-12) of HCP with clinical and/or research experience in AIS will be recruited for a focus group discussion. Topic guides and age-relevant documents are informed by existing evidence and developed using a framework of concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing. Audio-recordings will be transcribed verbatim, coded, analysed and synthesised using interpretive phenomenology analysis. Themes that generated from the analysis will be used as codes that will then be mapped to the SRS-22r contents. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales approval have been granted (IRAS 289888). Study findings will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.
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 | 0.082 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.005 |
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".