MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059616250 · doi:10.5152/tjr.2010.19

Psychometric Properties of the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis

2010· article· en· W2059616250 on OpenAlex
Serdal Kenan Köse, Derya Öztuna, Şehim Kutlay, Atilla Halil Elhan, Alan Tennant, Ayşe A. Küçükdeveci

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Rheumatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth assessmentOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyMedicineQuestionnaireIndex (typography)Alternative medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the psychometric properties of the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and the modified HAQ (MHAQ) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Materials and Methods: The internal construct validity of the HAQ-DI and MHAQ were assessed by Rasch analysis and external construct validity by associations with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). Reliability was tested by internal consistency and person separation index. Results: Two hundred and fifteen outpatients with knee OA (mean age±standard deviation (SD) 57.7±10.9 years; 81% female) filled in the assessment scales including HAQ-DI, WOMAC, WHODAS-II and the NHP. MHAQ was not administered as a separate measure but scored by using the HAQ-DI forms. Both the HAQ-DI and the MHAQ data satisfied Rasch model expectations with a mean item fit of 0.096 (SD 1.186) and -0.312 (SD 1.063), and person fit of 0.307 (SD 0.895) and -0.329 (SD 0.879), respectively. Both scales were unidimensional and showed no differential item functioning. The reliabilities of both scales were good with high Cronbach's alpha and PSI levels above 0.85. However neither of them was particularly well targeted to the current population who displayed a level of disability much below the average difficulty level of the scales. External construct validity was confirmed by expected correlations with WOMAC, WHODAS-II and NHP. Although the distribution of both scales was right skewed, the floor effect was more prominent in MHAQ. Conclusion: Both the HAQ-DI and MHAQ are found to be reliable and valid to assess physical disability in patients with knee OA. However, the possible floor effect in this diagnostic group should be kept in mind. (Turk J Rheumatol 2010; 25: 147-55)

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.254 · 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