Translation, Validity, and Reliability of the Arabic Version of the Patient-Experienced Continuity of Care Questionnaire (PECQ)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Continuity of care (CoC) is a cornerstone of effective primary health care. To improve CoC in this setting, it is essential that healthcare administrators evaluate it systematically. One validated tool designed for such purpose is the Patient-Experienced Continuity of Care Questionnaire (PECQ). The PECQ is a Swedish questionnaire that, at the time this study began, had been validated but did not have an Arabic version. Aim: This study aimed to translate the Swedish PECQ into Arabic and to determine the validity and reliability of the Arabic version within the Saudi community. Method: The research followed a multi-step process. The PECQ was translated according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research guidelines for translation and cultural adaptation. Content validity was assessed using the Content Validity Index (CVI), and internal consistency was measured using Cronbach’s alpha and a correlation matrix. Result: The Arabic version (A-PECQ), developed through a 10-step process, includes 20 items covering four dimensions of CoC: informational, relational, management, and knowledge continuity. An average Scale-level Content Validity Index (S-CVI) of 0.90 was achieved, with 75% of the items rated as having high content validity. Conclusion: The Arabic version of the PECQ demonstrated strong content validity and acceptable reliability, making it a suitable tool for evaluating CoC in Arabic-speaking communities. Although some of its components have moderate CVI values, the A-PECQ continues to be a useful instrument for assessing CoC in primary health care and supports quality improvement programs in this field.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".