MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4284676023

Validity and Reliability of the Japanese Version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire-Short Form for Chronic Low Back Pain.

2022· article· en· W4284676023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Takahiko Yoshimoto, Keiko Yamada, Tomoko Fujii, K. Kawamata, Satoshi Kasahara, Hiroyuki Oka, Ko Matsudaira

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaMedicinePhysical therapyIntraclass correlationPsychosocialConcurrent validityDistressReliability (semiconductor)Chronic painLow back painPsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal consistencyPsychiatryAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients at risk of developing persistent musculoskeletal pain problems with psychosocial aspects is crucial for targeted interventions. The Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire-Short Form (ÖMPSQ-SF) is a valid screening instrument that is widely used for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the ÖMPSQ-SF. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A Japanese population of voluntary patients in a web-based survey. METHODS: A sample of 262 individuals with chronic low back pain was included to assess the internal consistency and concurrent validity of the Japanese questionnaire. Internal consistency was evaluated by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Concurrent validity was assessed using the short form of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Pain Disability Assessment Scale, and Patient Health Questionnaire 2 items. Forty-one patients were asked to complete the ÖMPSQ-SF twice, a week apart, to evaluate test-retest reliability. Reliability was evaluated by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The Cronbach's alpha coefficient and ICC for the ÖMPSQ-SF total score were 0.71 and 0.77, respectively, indicating acceptable internal consistency and reliability. The concurrent validity results showed moderate-to-strong correlations between the ÖMPSQ-SF and other reference questionnaires (r = 0.38-0.65). The ÖMPSQ-SF domains on pain intensity, function, distress, fear-avoidance beliefs, and expectations showed the highest correlations with their counterpart standard questionnaires. LIMITATIONS: Our study included only individuals with chronic low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: The Japanese version of the ÖMPSQ-SF showed acceptable psychometric properties in Japanese adults with chronic low back pain, supporting its use in clinical and research settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→