Reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the hip outcome score in patients with end‐stage hip osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the Hip Outcome Score (HOS) in patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: In a cohort of 157 consecutive patients (mean age 66 years; 79 women) undergoing total hip replacement, the HOS was tested for the following measurement properties: feasibility (percentage of evaluable questionnaires), reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and standard error of measurement [SEM]), construct validity (correlation with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], Oxford Hip Score [OHS], Short Form 12 health survey, and University of California, Los Angeles activity scale), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), factorial validity (factor analysis), floor and ceiling effects, and internal and external responsiveness at 6 months after surgery (standardized response mean and change score correlations). RESULTS: Missing items occurred frequently. Five percent to 6% of the HOS activities of daily living (ADL) subscales and 20-32% of the sport subscales could not be scored. ICCs were 0.92 for both subscales. SEMs were 1.8 points (ADL subscale) and 2.3 points (sport subscale). Highest correlations were found with the OHS (r = 0.81 for ADL subscale and r = 0.58 for sport subscale) and the WOMAC physical function subscale (r = 0.83 for ADL subscale and r = 0.56 for sport subscale). Cronbach's alpha was 0.93 and 0.88 for the ADL and sport subscales, respectively. Neither unidimensionality of the subscales nor the 2-factor structure was supported by factor analysis. Both subscales showed good internal and external responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The HOS is reproducible and responsive when assessing patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis in whom the items are relevant. However, based on the large proportion of missing data and the findings of the factor analysis, we cannot recommend this questionnaire for routine use in this target group.
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 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".