MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045809222 · doi:10.1177/1071100714566624

Reliability and Validity of 6 Measures of Pain, Function, and Disability for Ankle Arthroplasty and Arthrodesis

2015· article· en· W2045809222 on OpenAlex
Ellie Pinsker, Taucha Inrig, Timothy R. Daniels, Kelly Warmington, Dorcas Beaton

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACMedicinePhysical therapyOsteoarthritisConstruct validityPatient-reported outcomeArthroplastyArthrodesisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnklePatient satisfactionQuality of life (healthcare)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used evaluating clinical care. Many measures used to assess operative hindfoot interventions vary in content, and some have not been psychometrically validated in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare measurement properties of 6 lower-extremity patient-reported outcome measures, and to evaluate their reliability and validity in light of patients' preferences. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 42 preoperative and 100 postoperative patients completed 6 lower-extremity outcome measures on 2 occasions: Foot Function Index (FFI), Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS), patient-reported items of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Questionnaire (AOFAS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), as well as measures of preference, and symptoms. RESULTS: Internal consistency was good to excellent for all scales and subscales (α = .84-.97; ICC [2,1] = .81-.96). Correlations between scales ranged from .50 (WOMAC(Stiffness) and FFI(Activity) Limitations) to .92 (LEFS and SMFA(Overall), WOMAC(Pain) and AOS(Overall), FFI(Overall) and AOFAS(Overall)). Higher correlations occurred within instruments (r = .97 AOS(Pain) and AOS(Overall)) and between similar subscales from different instruments (r = .91 WOMAC(Pain) and AOS(Pain)). Construct validity showed moderate to high correlations to global ratings of Pain, Stiffness, and difficulty performing Daily Activities. The highest correlations (r > .75) occurred between Pain and AOS(Overall) (r = .84), stiffness and WOMAC(Stiffness) (r = .81), and Daily Activities and AOS(Disability) (r = .87). Patients rated instruments by preference. FFI, WOMAC, LEFS, and SMFA rated favorably for length. FFI, WOMAC, LEFS, and AOFAS rated high for understandability. FFI was rated by postoperative patients as most likely to capture change due to surgery. SMFA rated the best overall. CONCLUSIONS: Direct comparison of instruments revealed similarity between scales in construct validity and reliability. Patient preferences supported the use of these scales. Foot-specific instruments offered no clear advantage over lower-extremity instruments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it