Svensk version av Canadian Physiotherapists Arthritis Care Survey – validering och test-retest reliabilitet för användning i primärvården
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with arthritis are often treated in a primary care setting. To study perceived knowledge and skills in arthritis care the questionnaire "Swedish version of the Canadian Physiotherapists Arthritis Care Survey" has been developed for use in rheumatology specialist care. The aim was to study whether the questionnaire were valid and reliable also for use in primary care. To assess face and content validity a focus group of eight physiotherapists working in primary care served as an expert panel. Test-retest was studied in a group of 30 physiotherapists working in primary health care and calculated with ICC /kappa. After some revision, the focus group gave the questionnaire face and content validity. Based on the focus group discussions questions not supported by the aim were removed (content of rheumatology training, certification and extended scope of practice) and four items added concerning recent education and perceived needs in the field. 95% (122/128) of \nthe questions in the revised questionnaire achieved a "fair to good" or "excellent" test-retest reliability (37% and 58%), while 5% (6/128) were classified as "poor". In summary, the questionnaire showed acceptable validity and reliability for most questions. Some of the questions need revision before the questionnaire is used in primary care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".