The Development and Content Validity of the Fremantle Perineal Awareness Questionnaire (FrePAQ) for Use in People With Persistent Perineal Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Altered body awareness and perception comprise a common feature of persistent pain. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) was developed to assess body awareness and perception in people with back pain. There is no tool to measure these changes in people with persistent perineal pain. Objective: To develop the Fremantle Perineal Awareness Questionnaire (FrePAQ) to assess body awareness and perception in people with persistent perineal pain. To evaluate content validity using a qualitative survey. Study Design: Modified electronic Delphi and cross-sectional qualitative online survey. Methods: A focus group developed a draft questionnaire from the preexisting FreBAQ. A preliminary FrePAQ was developed through 3 Delphi rounds of anonymous voting by a panel of 14 experts. A qualitative survey was completed by individuals with persistent perineal pain to evaluate the comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and relevance of the preliminary questionnaire. Responses were thematically analyzed, and demographic data were summarized descriptively. Results: Fourteen panel participants completed the Delphi study, with consensus achieved on a 9-item questionnaire after 3 rounds. One hundred thirty-five participants with persistent perineal pain completed the round 1 validation survey. Changes were made to the introduction and 7 items. A new group of 53 participants completed round 2, resulting in final changes to the introduction and 2 of the 9 items. Conclusions: An expert consensus was achieved in the wording of a new questionnaire aimed at assessing body awareness and perception in people with persistent perineal pain, which demonstrated acceptable content validity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".