Translation, cultural adaptation, validation and reliability of Persian version of Edmonton frailty score questionnaire among Iranian heart failure individuals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Frailty is a common problem in elderly individuals. However, this issue is not well investigated among heart failure (HF) patients with appropriate scales. We aimed to translate and evaluate Edmonton frailty scale (EFS) validity and reliability in Iranian HF adults. Methods: We implemented this methodological study on stable HF patients referred to an outpatient heart clinic in Isfahan, Iran. The translation was done using the forward-backward method. Ten individuals were asked to comment about all items in terms of understandability and simplicity. Fifteen experts were invited, and their ratings on each item were collected to measure the content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR). Cronbach's alpha was used for the assessment of internal consistency. After completing the scale for the second time with a two-week interval, test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) measurement was done. Results: The translation process was performed uneventfully. All items were reported to be simple and meaningful. CVI of items ranged from the minimum of 0.80 to a maximum of 1.00 plus an acceptable CVR of at least 0.60. Fifty HF patients (age: 67.2±14.1 years, males: 56%) completed the questionnaire twice without missing data. Cronbach's alpha was first to be 0.550. After omitting three items about social support, drug usage, and nutrition, the value was raised to 0.711. Test-retest reliability showed a good index of consistency (ICC: 0.693, 95% confidence interval: 0.527-0.810). Conclusion: Modified Persian EFS is a simple and meaningful tool with high validity and acceptable reliability for assessing frailty in HF individuals irrespective of age.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".