Comparison of the Construct Validity and Sensitivity to Change of the Visual Analog Scale and a Modified Rating Scale as Measures of Patient Global Assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient global assessment (PGA) is commonly measured using a visual analog scale (VAS). The VAS asks patients to integrate many dimensions of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity, yet its scope is poorly defined and its endpoints are vague. We investigated whether a modified Rating Scale that used marker states and more defined endpoints would provide a more valid measure of PGA. METHODS: In our prospective longitudinal study, 164 patients with active RA rated their global arthritis activity using the VAS and Rating Scale before and after treatment. To compare construct validity, we correlated each score with 2 reference measures of RA activity, the 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and the physician global assessment, and examined how each measure was associated with different aspects of RA activity, including pain, functioning, and depressive symptoms, in multivariate regression analyses. We also examined sensitivity to change. RESULTS: Both measures were correlated with the DAS28 (r = 0.39 for VAS; r = 0.35 for Rating Scale) and physician global assessment (r = 0.41 for VAS; r = 0.26 for Rating Scale) at the baseline visit. Pain and depressive symptoms had the strongest association with the VAS, while functional limitations and depressive symptoms had the strongest association with the Rating Scale. Residual analysis showed no differences in heterogeneity of patients' ratings. VAS was more sensitive to change than the Rating Scale (standardized response means of 0.55 and 0.45). CONCLUSION: As measures of PGA, the VAS and Rating Scale had comparable construct validity, but differed in which aspects of arthritis activity influenced scores. VAS was more sensitive to change.
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 | 0.044 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".