Translation, transcultural adaptation into Brazilian Portuguese and concurrent validity of the rheumatoid arthritis assessment scale (RAKAS–13/Brazil)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of patients about Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a necessary aspect to better approach self-management support in a patient-centered manner. The research instrument known as the Rheumatoid Arthritis Knowledge Assessment Scale (RAKAS), consisting of 13 items, is simple, reliable and reproducible, and can be applied in both clinical practice and research protocols. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the RAKAS vocabulary into Brazilian Portuguese and to evaluate its concurrent validity. METHODS: The RAKAS was translated into Brazilian Portuguese and administered to 52 elderly women with RA recruited between May 2021 and May 2022. Concurrent validity was assessed using the Spearman's correlation coefficient between RAKAS and Patient Knowledge Questionnaire (PKQ). RESULTS: The participants considered RAKAS-13/BRAZIL easy to understand and did not report any doubts in answering the final version. Concurrent validity of the RAKAS-13/BRAZIL was low compared to the PKQ (ρ = 0.283, p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: The Brazilian Portuguese version of the RAKAS (RAKAS-13/BRASIL) proved to be a questionnaire that was easy and quick to administer to assess patient knowledge about Rheumatoid Arthritis, despite its low correlation with the PKQ in the present study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".