The Functional Rating Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Crosscultural adaptation and psychometric measurements of the Functional Rating Index (FRI). OBJECTIVE: To develop and investigate the reliability and validity of the Persian version of the FRI when applied to patients with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The FRI is a self-report questionnaire designed to assess patient's perception of function and pain. Despite the use of this outcome measure in clinical trials in Iran, it was not translated and culturally adapted. METHODS: The FRI was translated into Persian language and crossculturally adapted. The Persian FRI was administered to 100 patients with LBP (male patients/female patients = 22/78). A numerical rating scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale were also recorded. The test-retest reliability (time interval = 7 days) was assessed in 50 patients. RESULTS: There were no missing responses and floor or ceiling effects. The examination of discriminative validity showed that the questionnaire discriminated clearly between patients and healthy participants (P < 0.001). The concurrent criterion validity was confirmed by the Spearman rank correlation between the Persian FRI and the numerical rating scale (0.73, P < 0.0001 for test; and 0.77 for retest, P < 0.0001). Evidence for construct validity was found with a significant Pearson correlation between the FRI and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (r = 0.61; P < 0.0001), the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (r = 0.75; P < 0.0001), or Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (r = 0.76; P < 0.0001). Internal consistency reliability estimates (Cronbach α) for the Persian FRI were high, with 0.89 for test and 0.92 for retest. The test-retest reliability for the total score was excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient (agreement) (ICCagreement) of 0.81 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The Persian version of the FRI seems to have an excellent reliability and validity when applied to patients with LBP.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.024 | 0.010 |
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".