MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Development and content validity of a rating scale for the Pain and Disability Drivers Management Model.

2024· preprint· en· W4391339843 on OpenAlexafffund
Florian Naye, Simon Décary, Yannick Tousignant‐Laflamme

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsContent validityRating scaleScale (ratio)Likert scaleBiopsychosocial modelCLARITYPsychologyCriterion validityIndex (typography)Applied psychologyPhysical therapyClinical psychologyComputer scienceMedicineConstruct validityPsychometricsPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale, aims and objectives Establishing the biopsychosocial profile of patients with low back pain is essential to personalize care. The Pain and Disability Drivers Management model (PDDM) has been suggested as a useful framework to help clinicians establish the profile. Yet, there is no tool to facilitate its integration into clinical practice. Thus, the aim of this study is to develop and validate a rating scale, in order to rapidly establish the patient’s profile based on the domains of the PDDM. Method The tool was developed in accordance with the principles of COSMIN methodology. We conducted 3 steps: 1) item generation from a comprehensive review, 2) refinement of the scale with clinicians’ feedback, and 3) statistical analyses to assess the content validity. To validate the item assessing with Likert scales, we performed Item level-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) analyses on three criteria with an a priori threshold of >0.78. We conducted Average-Content Validity Index (Ave-CVI) analyses to validate the overall scale with a threshold of >0.9. Results Coherent with the PDDM, we developed a 5-item rating scale with 4 score options. We selected clinical instruments to screen the presence or absence of the categories of each domain. 42 participants provided feedback to refine the clarity, presentation and clinical applicability of the scale. The statistical analysis of the latest version presented I-CVI above the threshold for each item (between 0.94 and 1). The analysis of the overall scale supported its validation (Ave-CVI=0.95 [0.94;0.97]). Conclusion From the 51 biopsychosocial elements contained within the 5 domains of the PDDM, we developed a rating scale that allows to rapidly screen for problematic issues for categories within each domain. The involvement of clinicians in the process allowed us to validate the content of the first scale to establish the patient’s biopsychosocial profile for people with LBP

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→