MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409919274 · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2025.103342

Development and content validity of the musculoskeletal self-management questionnaire (MSK-SMQ)

2025· article· en· W4409919274 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMusculoskeletal Science and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYContent validityRelevance (law)MedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Self-management is recommended for managing persistent musculoskeletal conditions. In self-management, standardized and validated measurements (e.g., questionnaires) should be used. However, there is no general questionnaire to evaluate the level of self-management in people with persistent musculoskeletal conditions. OBJECTIVES: To develop a generic questionnaire to evaluate the level of self-management and self-management skills in people with persistent musculoskeletal conditions. DESIGN: Measurement properties study focused on the development and content validity of the Musculoskeletal Self-Management Questionnaire (MSK-SMQ). METHODS: The MSK-SMQ was developed, consisting of 24 questions. To assess the content validity of the MSK-SMQ, three panels (patients, professionals, researchers/academics) were used. The relevance, clarity and essentiality of each question was evaluated. Moreover, specific feedback could be provided. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was used to test content validity (Item-CV [I-CVI]) and the Scale-level-CVI [S-CVI]). The CVI was calculated for both relevance and clarity. The essentiality of each item was measured with the content validity ratio (CVR). RESULTS/FINDINGS: 91 people participated in this study. The overall content validity (relevance) was excellent, with an S-CVI of 0.96. Overall clarity was also excellent, with a score of 0.97. The range of the I-CVI for relevance was 0.91-1.00 and the range for clarity was 0.93-1.00. The mean CVR value was 0.51 and ranged from 0.14 to 0.87. CONCLUSIONS: The content validity of the questionnaire was found to be excellent. The study resulted in a revised version of the MSK-SMQ, which can be used in future research to determine further psychometric properties.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.323 · 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