Development, validation and reliability of work-related low back pain questionnaire for nursing professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Multiple risk factors induce work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), resulting in a higher prevalence of work-related low back pain among nurses. This research aimed to develop and establish the validity and reliability of work-related low back pain questionnaire (WRLBPQ) for nursing professionals. METHODS: This study employed a methodology centered on the development, reliability, and validation of a scale. Five experts with a master's degree in the relevant subject and a minimum of 10 years of academic experience participated in the first focal group discussion. Subsequently, thirty-five specialists engaged in the evaluation of content validity for the WRLBP questionnaire. To assess reliability, a sample of 200 staff nurses employed in hospitals was chosen to participate in this questionnaire. RESULTS: The newly developed WRLBPQ tool demonstrates strong scale-level content validity, achieving a score exceeding 0.78 for each item. The kappa values for each item ranged from 0.97 for item quality to 1 for item content, indicating excellent agreement. The universal acceptance of each item was 0.91 for quality and 1 for content. The Pearson correlation coefficient was employed to determine test-retest reliability, yielding a result of rho = 1 for session 1 and rho = 0.82 for session 2. Inter-rater reliability was determined using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), with values of 0.76 for rater A and 0.86 for rater B, alongside a Cronbach alpha of 0.98. CONCLUSION: The WRLBP questionnaire, the first measurement tool among nursing professionals, is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating WRLBP among nursing professionals.
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".