Validity and Responsiveness of the Dutch McMaster Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Questionnaire (MACTAR) in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Hip or Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the content validity, the construct validity, and the responsiveness of the Dutch McMaster Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Questionnaire (MACTAR) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. METHODS: The MACTAR comprises 2 parts: a transitional part and a status part. Content validity was investigated by comparing patient-elicited activities to items on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Construct validity was determined by correlating MACTAR outcomes with WOMAC/SF-36 outcomes. Responsiveness was investigated by correlating MACTAR, WOMAC, and SF-36 change scores with patient global assessment (PGA) scores and plotting a receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Eleven percent of the 894 impaired activities, identified by 192 patients, were not represented in either the WOMAC or the SF-36. The correlations (r(s)) investigated for the MACTAR transitional part varied between 0.27 and -0.40; the status part correlated moderately with the general health scale of the SF-36 (r(s) = 0.44). MACTAR change scores correlated better with PGA than with WOMAC/SF-36 change scores. The area under the ROC curve amounted to 0.90. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the MACTAR exhibits moderate construct validity and good responsiveness in a population of patients with OA of the hip or knee. The MACTAR is potentially better able to detect changes over time in activities that are important to individual patients compared to other tools measuring physical function (WOMAC, SF-36). Clinicians could use the MACTAR to evaluate clinically relevant changes over time in patient-specific physical functioning.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".