Questionnaire for usability evaluation of orthopaedic shoes: construction and reliability in patients with degenerative disorders of the foot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a self-report questionnaire for patients with degenerative disorders of the foot to evaluate the usability of their orthopaedic shoes, and to assess the reproducibility and responsiveness of the instrument. DESIGN: Development of the Questionnaire for Usability Evaluation of orthopaedic shoes was based on a literature search, structured expert interviews and a ranking procedure. A cross-sectional study was carried out to determine the reproducibility and internal consistency of the questionnaire. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: The study population comprised 15 patients with degenerative disorders of the foot, who had worn their orthopaedic shoes for at least 3 years and 15 patients with degenerative disorders of the foot, who had never worn orthopaedic shoes, but would receive them within 1 month. RESULTS: Within the questionnaire 4 effectiveness items (pain, instability, callus, wounds), 1 efficiency item (putting on and taking off shoes) and 7 satisfaction items (pinch, slip, weight of shoes, cold feet, perspiration, maintenance, cosmetic appearance) were developed. All items in the questionnaire met the test-retest criteria. The smallest real difference ranged from 0.23 to 3.82 cm on a Visual Analogue Scale (10 cm). Cronbach's alpha's for the domains of pain and instability ranged from 0.70 to 0.92. CONCLUSION: The Questionnaire for Usability Evaluation should provide a good rationale to assess the usability of orthopaedic shoes and can be considered reliable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".