Construct validity of the Hungarian Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 Profile Among Patients with Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Hungarian version of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS)-29 profile domains among patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: We used a convenience, cross-sectional sampling of patients recruited at our neurosurgical institution. The participants completed paper-pencil version of the PROMIS-29 profile in addition to validated legacy questionnaires, including the Oswestry disability index, Research and Development Corporation 36-item short-form survey, 7-item general anxiety disorder scale, 9-item patient health questionnaire. Reliability was evaluated by calculating the internal consistency (Cronbach's α). Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. The structural validity of PROMIS-29 was assessed using a confirmatory factor analysis. Construct validity was assessed by evaluating convergent and discriminant validity using Spearman's rank correlation. To further corroborate the construct validity, we also performed known-group comparisons. RESULTS: The mean age of the 131 participants was 54 ± 16 years. Of the 131 patients, 62% were women. The internal consistency of each PROMIS domain was high (Cronbach's α >0.89 for all). The test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation >0.97). The confirmatory factor analysis showed good structural validity (comparative fit index >0.96; standardized root mean square residual <0.026 for all domains). All measured PROMIS scores correlated strongly with the scores obtained using the corresponding primary legacy instrument, indicating excellent convergent validity. The known-group comparisons demonstrated differences as hypothesized. CONCLUSIONS: We present data supporting the validity and reliability of the Hungarian PROMIS-29 profile short forms for patients with low back pain. This instrument will be useful for research and clinical applications in spine care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".