Factor structure of Participation Behavioural Questionnaire (PBQ) in patients with hand injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation is considered a critical outcome of successful rehabilitation and should be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the structural validity of the Participation Behaviour Questionnaire (PBQ) in people with hand injuries. METHODOLOGY: The PBQ contains 30 items that measure participation as conceptualized in the ICF. PBQ was developed with Rasch analysis to measure participation in hand injured. A sample of 404 patients with hand injuries and a mean age of 37 (16.0) participated and was randomly split for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA/CFA). RESULTS: Both EFA and CFA confirmed a four factor-solution. These factors were named: Social Participation and Interpersonal Relationships, Autonomy and Role, Subjective Satisfaction with Participation, Recreational, Sport, and Leisure Time. The value of Cronbach's alpha was 0.96 for the total scale and >0.85 for each subscale. CONCLUSIONS: The structural validity of the PBQ was confirmed using both EFA and CFA. The PBQ measures four dimensions of participation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".