MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4372337651 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285538

Content validity of the Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22r): A qualitative concept elicitation study

2023· article· en· W4372337651 on OpenAlexaff
Samia Alamrani, Adrian Gardner, Deborah Falla, Emily Russell, Alison Rushton, Nicola R Heneghan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchScoliosisPhoto elicitationPsychologyMedicineData scienceComputer scienceKnowledge managementSociologySocial sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Scoliosis Research Society-22 revised (SRS-22r) is the common questionnaire used to evaluate health related quality of life (HRQOL) for young people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). The aim of this study is to evaluate its content validity for this population. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of young people with AIS (Cobb angle ≥25˚, aged 10-18 years). Concept elicitation was used to evaluate the influence of AIS on participants' HRQOL. Participant information sheets and consent/assent forms were age relevant. Topic guide was informed by the SRS-22r and existing evidence. Interviews were audio and video recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analysed using thematic analysis. Derived themes/codes were compared with SRS-22r contents (domains/items). RESULTS: Eleven participants (mean age 14.9 years [SD = 1.8]; 8 female) were recruited. The mean curve size was 47.5° [SD = 18°] and participants had been managed via different approaches. Four main themes emerged with associated subthemes: 1) Physical effects related to physical symptoms (back hurt, stiffness) and body asymmetry (uneven shoulders), 2) Activity-related effects showed impact on mobility (sitting for long periods), self-care (dressing), and school activities (focus during lessons), 3) Psychological effects revealed emotional (feel worried), mental (sleep quality), and body image effects (hide back from others), 4) Social effects (participation in school and leisure activities), and school, friends and mental health support. A weak association was found between items of the SRS-22r and the identified codes. CONCLUSION: The SRS-22r does not adequately capture important concepts that relate to HRQOL of adolescents with AIS. These findings support revision of the SRS-22r, or the development of a new patient reported outcome measure to evaluate HRQOL of adolescents with AIS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.673
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→