Validity and responsiveness of the Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand (MAP-Hand) in patients with hand osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand (MAP-Hand) is reliable and valid in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity and responsiveness of the MAP-Hand in patients with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: Patients were recruited from 2 rheumatology centres. The internal consistency of the MAP-Hand was assessed by Cronbach's α. Content validity was evaluated based on patient interviews. Construct validity and responsiveness were based on predefined hypotheses of correlation between the MAP-Hand and concurrent measures. RESULTS: Ten men and 201 women, mean age 62.8 years (standard deviation (SD) 6.8) and disease duration 12.5 (SD 7.5) years were included. A Cronbach's α of 0.86 was determined. All 18 items in the MAP-Hand were described in the interviews. Sixty-seven percent of the correlation coefficients for baseline scores and 75% for change scores were in correspondence with the predefined hypotheses. A high correlation was found between the MAP-Hand and the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index function score at baseline (rho = 0.76). A moderate correlation was found for change scores (rho = 0.52). CONCLUSION: The content of the MAP-Hand adequately reflects described activity limitations in patients with hand osteoarthritis. The results suggest that the MAP-Hand has adequate internal consistency and responsiveness. Before the MAP-Hand is used in patients with hand osteoarthritis, evaluations of reliability and further construct validity are warranted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".