Validity, responsiveness and reliability of the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a common, often chronic injury that affects a person's ability to grip and perform manual tasks including activities of daily living and leisure. Treatment of LE is controversial; however, there have been no standardized tools with which to measure outcomes in trials investigating new or existing therapies for LE. The Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) was designed to fill this gap, but has not yet been validated to the same standard as other, similarly developed tools. Methods Sixty subjects with LE who participated in a double-blind randomized controlled trial were measured with respect to the PRTEE, ‘overall pain’, ‘resting pain’, ‘pain during sleep’, ‘pain at its worst’ and ‘pain at its least’, and quality of life. All tools were administered at baseline, four and eight weeks. Results The PRTEE showed poor item-specific validity with measures of similar constructs. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test–retest reliability over four weeks was 0.76. The mean PRTEE differences between the group that experienced clinical significant change and the group that experienced virtually no change were significantly different from one another ( t = −2.96, df = 30, P = 0.006). Discussion The PRTEE shows questionable discriminant ability due to its moderate test–retest reliability and possibly due to low convergent validity with other measures of similar constructs. The PRTEE appears to be sensitive to change, but the margin of difference between a clinically relevant change and ‘no change’ is very small.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".