Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the brief resilience scale (BRS) in individuals with rotator cuff related shoulder pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) in a sample of adults with persistent rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 115 adults with persistent RCRSP participated in the study. All participants completed the BRS at baseline and again at 12 weeks to evaluate responsiveness. Of these, 92 completed the BRS 1-2 weeks after baseline to evaluate test-retest reliability. Additionally, construct validity was investigated through a-priori hypothesis testing, comparing the BRS with patient-reported outcome measures that assess various biopsychosocial constructs. RESULTS: The BRS is reliable (α = 0.83; Intraclass Correlation Coefficient =0.83; Standard Error of Measurement = 0.33 points; Minimal Detectable Change = 0.91 points) and valid, as all a-priori hypotheses were confirmed. Positive associations were found with measures of self-efficacy and social support, while negative associations were observed with pain intensity, perceived stress, catastrophizing, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. However, the estimated Area Under the Curve (AUC = 0.47) indicated insufficient responsiveness. CONCLUSION: While the BRS demonstrated adequate reliability and construct validity in estimating resilience levels in individuals with persistent RCRSP, it lacks sufficient responsiveness in this population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".