Reliability and Validation of the Persian Version of JUICE Study Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study is part of a prospective international cohort study on the composition of microbiota living in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and its correlations to the patients' symptoms, and their psychological and physical health status in three different populations (JUICE Study). Our study evaluates the reliability and validity of the Persian version of a three-part questionnaire which will be used in this study. METHODS: The original English version of the questionnaire was translated to Farsi and then back translated to English by an expert Iranian English teacher. The back-translation was edited by a native English speaker and then retranslated to Farsi. The questionnaire consists of three parts; the first part includes demographic data, the second part is the EQ-5D questionnaire which is an instrument developed by the EuroQol group to measure five dimensions of quality of life and health status, and the third part is the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire (HADS). By convenience sampling, 22 participants were enrolled. To check reliability, they were asked to complete the questionnaire and repeat this two weeks later. For validity, one of the researchers completed the questionnaire for each of the participants after interviewing them and this was compared with the questionnaire completed by the participant. Each participant was also asked to comment on the content and structure of the questionnaire and these points were considered for improvement of the questionnaire. RESULTS: questions, respectively. In the second part, i.e. the EQ5D questionnaire, percentage agreements of the first and second items for reliability equaled 1. Percentage agreements of the three last items were 0.90, 0.63 and 0.72, respectively. Validity of the EQ5D questionnaire was 100% for the first three items and 95% for the last one. For the HADS questionnaire, percentage agreement averaged 0.63 in the reliability phase and 0.78 in the validation phase. CONCLUSION: According to our data, this three-part questionnaire has acceptable reliability and validity to be used as an instrument in Farsi-speaking populations for the JUICE study.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".