Cross-cultural adaptation and cognitive interview-based content validation of the English Participation Behaviour Questionnaire (PBQ), to measure participation in individuals with hand injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hand injuries can significantly impair individuals' ability to engage in essential daily and social activities, necessitating valid and culturally relevant tools to assess participation limitations. The Participation Behaviour Questionnaire (PBQ), originally developed in Persian and grounded in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), was designed to evaluate the extent of participation restrictions following hand and upper limb injuries. Purpose: This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PBQ for use among Canadian English-speaking individuals with hand injuries and assess its content validity within a Canadian clinical context. Methods: The PBQ was adapted according to Beaton's five-step guideline for the cross-cultural translation of self-report measures. Cognitive interviews were conducted with 15 patients and 22 healthcare professionals, including physiotherapists, hand therapists, surgeons, and rehabilitation researchers, using think-aloud and semi-structured methods to examine item clarity, consistency of interpretation, and cultural appropriateness. Findings: Cognitive interviews with 15 patients and 22 experts revealed 25 items requiring revision, with 88% of concerns related to clarity and comprehension. Overall, clarity issues were identified in 22 of the 37 items, resulting in 18 substantive revisions. For example, the item "I feel I have lost my autonomy" was revised to "I feel I have lost my independence in daily tasks" to improve clarity. Commonly misunderstood terms included "public transport" and "voluntary job," which were refined using culturally contextual examples. Cultural and contextual factors also influenced how participants interpreted items such as "My use of public transport" (12%) and "Engagement in voluntary work" (20%). Implications: The English-adapted PBQ demonstrated evidence of content validity based on participant feedback regarding clarity, relevance, and comprehensibility. The 18 substantive revisions enhanced cultural and linguistic appropriateness by addressing clarity in 22 of 37 items, refining ambiguous terminology, and incorporating Canadian-contextual examples where necessary. These findings represent an initial step in the overall validation process; in this pre-psychometric, single-center Canadian-English study, additional research is required to assess the instrument's psychometric properties, including construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".