The relationship between self‐report and performance‐related measures: Questioning the content validity of timed tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the determinants of the modest correlation between self-report and performance-related measures in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. METHODS: Measures included the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), the self paced walk, timed up-and-go, and stair test. Each performance measure consisted of 3 domains: time, pain (visual analog scale), and exertion (Borg scale). Activity specificity was assessed by examining correlations between the LEFS with single activity and multiple activity time scores. Domain specificity was examined by comparing correlations between the LEFS and single and multiple domain scores. The impact of measurement error was considered. RESULTS: Increasing the number of activity time scores had no effect. Forming a composite performance score based on time, pain, and exertion substantially increased the correlation from 0.44 (composite timed score) to 0.59 (pooled domain and activity score) (P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Performance scores based on time alone appear to inadequately represent the breadth of health concepts associated with functional status.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".