Evaluating quality of life in hip and knee replacement: Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Quality of Life short version instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Quality of Life short version instrument (WHOQOL-BREF), and to determine its responsiveness in assessing early outcome after total hip or knee replacement surgery. METHODS: At baseline (entry to an orthopedic waiting list), 279 participants completed the WHOQOL-BREF instrument, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Assessment of Quality of Life (AQOL) instrument, Kessler Psychological Distress (K10) scale, and the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ). A total of 74 patients completed reassessments 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: The WHOQOL-BREF demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for all domains (Cronbach's alpha = 0.76-0.84) and moderate concurrent validity for the physical and psychological domains (r = 0.67 for physical versus AQOL; r = -0.71 for psychological versus K10). Minimal ceiling or floor effects were identified at baseline or 3 months, except for the social relationships domain. The disease-specific WOMAC subscales were most responsive to change (relative efficiency [RE] 0.66-1.00). Apart from social relationships, all WHOQOL-BREF scores improved significantly after surgery. The physical domain was more responsive than the AQOL (RE 0.50 versus 0.42) and was similar to the MHAQ (RE 0.55 for MHAQ). The responsiveness of the psychological domain was similar to that of the K10 scale (RE 0.11 versus 0.08). CONCLUSION: The WHOQOL-BREF has good psychometric properties for use in persons with severe joint disease, and by providing complementary information, it offers clinicians and researchers an additional tool for comprehensively assessing quality of life in this patient 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".