Psychometric testing of the British English Workplace Activity Limitations Scale in four rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The aims were to validate a British English version of the Workplace Activity Limitations Scale (WALS) linguistically, then test this psychometrically in RA, axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), OA and FM. Methods The WALS was forward translated, reviewed by an expert panel, and cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted. Participants completed a postal questionnaire booklet. Construct (structural) validity was examined by fit to the Rasch measurement model. Concurrent validity included testing between the WALS and the Work Limitations Questionnaire-25 (WLQ-25). Two weeks later, participants were mailed a second questionnaire booklet for test–retest reliability. Results Minor wording changes were made to the WALS, then 831 employed participants completed questionnaires: 267 men and 564 women; 53.5 (s.d. 8.9) years of age; with condition duration 7.7 (s.d. 8.0) years. The WALS satisfied Rasch model requirements, and a WALS Rasch transformation table was created. Concurrent validity was strong with the WLQ-25 (RA rs = 0.78; axSpA rs = 0.83; OA rs = 0.63; FM rs = 0.64). Internal consistency was consistent with group use (α = 0.80–0.87). Test–retest reliability was excellent, with intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) at ≥0.90. Conclusion A reliable, valid British English version of the WALS is now available for use in the UK.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".