Psychometric properties of the Persian version of neurogenic bladder symptom score questionnaire: A methodological study on patients with multiple sclerosis and stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Concerning the impact of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) on quality of life, besides the lack of standard psychometrically-analyzed Persian tools, the present study investigated the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the neurogenic bladder symptom score (NBSS) questionnaire. METHODS: A total of 279 multiple sclerosis (MS) or stroke/cerebrovascular accident (CVA) patients over 18 years of age with NLUTD referred to the neurology clinics entered the study in 2021-2022. After translation, back-translation, and developing a Persian version, its validity and reliability were determined. The content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR) were calculated quantitatively. To determine the internal consistency and scale reliability, a test-retest was used. RESULTS: The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.83 and the intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval) was 0.85 (0.82, 0.88). Cronbach's α in all domains (incontinence, storage and voiding, and consequence) was greater than 0.70. The criterion validity also showed a positive correlation of NBSS with the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-overactive bladder (p < 0.001 and r = 0.55). The face validity was acceptable according to the opinion of 10 participants. To determine the CVI and the CVR, 10 experts' panels reviewed all items related to the questionnaire in terms of necessity, clarity, transparency, and relevancy. Based on the expert panel all NBSS criteria got a high score, and all criteria were essential to assess NLUTD (CVI: 0.78-1). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding validity and reliability, the Persian version NBSS questionnaire can properly evaluate NLUTD in MS or stroke/CVA patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".