Reliability and Internal Validity of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) remains one of very few to be based on validated and systematic methods in its creation. However, test-retest reliability and internal validity have not been appropriately investigated in any other English-speaking population outside the original development sample. The objective of this study is to examine the reliability and internal validity of the MHQ in a Canadian population. METHODS: All patients with a clinical hand problem but no hand immobilization who attended our Plastic Surgery Clinic were invited to participate in this study. Patients were asked to complete the MHQ, and then contacted to arrange for completion of the MHQ a second time. Internal validity was estimated using Cronbach alpha. Reliability was estimated using the method of Bland and Altman, and intraclass correlation coefficients. Correlation analysis between score differences and time between tests was performed. RESULTS: Full versions of the MHQ were completed by 116 participants on their initial visit, while only 77 participants completed a second MHQ. Cronbach alpha ranged from 0.84 to 0.95 for the MHQ subscales. Intraclass-correlation coefficients ranged from 0.71 to 0.84 for the subscales. The magnitude of the limits of agreement for the subscales ranged from 13.8 to 26.2. The difference in scores between the first and second tests was not related to the time between tests. CONCLUSION: The high values of Cronbach alpha indicate high internal validity, but that there may be redundancy between items in the MHQ, which could be eliminated without losing information. Reliability of the MHQ is considered moderate. The limits of agreement are considered wide, indicating potential issues with respect to interpretation of a change in score between 2 administrations of the MHQ.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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".