Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the new region-generic version of Fremantle Body Awareness—General Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the field of pain evaluation grows, newer and more targeted tools are being published for patient-centric evaluation of specific aspects of the pain experience. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) is intended to capture alterations in bodily awareness or perception. To date only region-specific (back, neck, shoulder, knee) versions have been published. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to report on the properties of a new region-generic version of the FreBAQ, the FreBAQ-general. Structural validity, internal consistency, and convergent validity against external criteria were evaluated in a sample of Canadian military veterans with chronic pain, with results compared against those published for the region-specific FreBAQ versions. METHODS: Eligible participants were those that had prior military service, were at least 18 years of age and self-identified as having chronic pain. We used a split-sample approach to Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on independent random samples. Factor structure, internal consistency, and associations with external criteria were used to compare against prior versions. RESULTS: 328 respondents (74% of consented) completed at least 7 of the 9 FreBAQ-general questions. EFA and CFA on two independent samples offered support for both 6- and 7-item versions. Comparisons against the external criteria (pain severity, interference, catastrophizing) indicated no statistical superiority of one over the other, so in the interest of parsimony the 6-item FreBAQ-general was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The Fremantle Body Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ-general) showed psychometric properties very much in alignment with those previously reported for the region-specific versions, and sound factorial validity accomplished with fewer items (6 vs. 9). We believe this version can be implemented in practice for those seeking a shorter scale without the need to have multiple region-specific versions on hand, though suggest that those seeking direct comparability with previously published work will still wish to use the original versions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".