Dutch translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the LIMB-Q Kids questionnaire
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to translate and culturally adapt the LIMB-Q Kids questionnaire for use in the Netherlands. The LIMB-Q Kids is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess functional, psychosocial, and aesthetic aspects of living with a limb difference in paediatric populations. AIM: To investigate the feasibility of a questionnaire in the Netherlands, which was translated into Dutch after having already been successfully translated and validated in several other languages. METHODS: The translation and adaptation process followed best practice guidelines, including forward and backward translation, expert panel review, and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. The interviews focused on the clarity and comprehensibility of the instructions, response options, and questionnaire items. RESULTS: The rigorous process resulted in a linguistically and conceptually equivalent Dutch version of the LIMB-Q Kids questionnaire. While some challenges were encountered, no major difficulties were reported. The constructs and cultural relevance were found to be relatable to the Dutch context. Minor adjustments were made based on patient feedback, such as clarifying questions and modifying translations for technical terms. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the successful translation and cultural adaptation of the LIMB-Q Kids questionnaire for use in the Netherlands. By following best practices, the researchers have developed a version that is conceptually and linguistically equivalent to the original English version. The availability of this Dutch version will facilitate the assessment of outcomes in paediatric populations with limb differences, and potentially enable cross-cultural comparisons.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 it