Extension from inpatients to outpatients: validity and reliability of the Oxford Knee Score in measuring health outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in outpatients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Eligible patients were interviewed using a pretested questionnaire containing the OKS, the Short Form (SF)-6D, and the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire score (EQ-5D). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, dimensionality using principal component factor analysis and item-total correlations, convergent and discriminant construct validity using expected correlations between the OKS and the SF-6D and the EQ-5D. RESULTS: The OKS were well accepted by patients in a pilot testing. When administered to a convenient sample of 187 patients with knee OA (mean age 64 years, 74% female, mean duration of OA 7.6 years), Cronbach's alpha exceeded 0.8 and factor analysis yielded two factors with eigenvalues > 1. Hypothesized item-total correlations (ρ ≥ 0.4) were observed for all items. Convergent construct validity was supported by the presence of hypothesized moderate to strong correlations between the OKS and SF-6D physical functioning, role limitation, social functioning and pain, EQ-5D mobility, self-care, usual activities, and pain/discomfort, and mobility visual analogue scale (ρ = 0.47-0.82). Discriminant construct validity was not satisfactory. The OKS correlated weakly with SF-6D vitality (ρ = 0.35), but strongly with SF-6D mental health and EQ-5D anxiety/depression (ρ = 0.51 and 0.41, respectively). CONCLUSION: The OKS has demonstrated good psychometric properties and thus can be considered a reliable and valid measurement for outpatients with OA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".