Malay translation and validation of the quality of life after brain injury (QOLIBRI) questionnaire for individuals with traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Objectives: The Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI) is a health-related quality of life (QOL) questionnaire for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim of this study was to translate and validate the Malay version of QOLIBRI (M-QOLIBRI). Methods: One hundred sixty-two individuals with TBI participated in this cross-sectional and validation study. Internal consistency, concurrent-criterion validity, construct validity, and test–retest reliability were assessed with Cronbach’s alpha, Spearman’s correlation coefficient, confirmatory factor analysis, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: M-QOLIBRI was proven reliable, with an overall alpha value of 0.911 and an ICC value of 1.00. The t-test result showed insignificant differences between the first and second administration of M-QOLIBRI (t = 1.897, p > 0.05). No significant correlation existed between the M-QOLIBRI score and patients’ age (r = −.111, p > 0.05) and time since injury (r = −.117, p > 0.05). Factor analysis was used to check for the validity of the instrument. The KMO value in this study was acceptable (0.786), which proved that the sample size was adequate. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that M-QOLIBRI is a valid and reliable tool to assess the health-related QOL after brain injury of Malaysian population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".