Validity and Sensitivity to Change of Patient-Reported Pain and Disability Measures for Elbow Pathologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the internal consistency, concurrent construct validity, longitudinal validity, sensitivity to change, and factor structure of the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation form (PREE), the patient-reported form of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Elbow Questionnaire (pASES-e), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) in a diverse group of patients who had surgery for various elbow pathologies. BACKGROUND: Measuring functional outcomes after surgical procedures of the elbow requires valid patient-reported pain and disability questionnaires. The PREE, the pASES-e, and the DASH are commonly used questionnaires. There is, however, insufficient evidence available concerning their validity and sensitivity to change. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected from 128 patients (mean ± SD age, 46.5 ± 12.8 years) post-elbow surgery. Patients completed the PREE, the pASES-e, the DASH, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey at baseline (first visit after surgery) and 6 months postsurgery. Concurrent construct validity, longitudinal validity, sensitivity to change, and factor structure were analyzed. RESULTS: Concurrent construct validity was demonstrated by confirmation of expected relationships; the strongest correlations were observed between the PREE pain score, the PREE total score, the pASES-e pain score, and the DASH score (r = 0.73-0.87). The pASES-e function score correlated the least with other constructs. Longitudinal validity demonstrated similar findings: the pASES-e pain change score and PREE change score were most strongly correlated, and the pASES-e function change score and DASH change score were moderately to weakly correlated. All 3 patient-reported questionnaires demonstrated a large effect size and standardized response means greater than 1.0. Structural validity was supported for the PREE (R2 = 77.2%, 4 factors) and the pASES-e (R2 = 74.4%, 4 factors), but not for the DASH (R2 = 71.3%, 5 factors). CONCLUSION: The PREE, the pASES-e, and the DASH have acceptable validity and sensitivity to change. The pASES-e function subscale is the least sensitive to change and is less correlated to other measures.
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 | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".