Convergent Validity of the Constant-Murley Outcome Measure in Patients with Rotator Cuff Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite the popularity of the Constant-Murley score (CMS), a combined patient-report and objective (health professional administered) shoulder outcome measure, minimal information exists on its reliability or validity. The purpose of this study was to examine (1) internal consistency and convergent validity of the CMS and (2) the degree to which other shoulder measures explain variation in range of motion and strength components of the CMS. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study of outcome measures, 45 patients undergoing conservative or surgical treatment for rotator cuff disease participated. Two disease-specific outcome measures, one shoulder-specific measure, and one upper extremity outcome measure were compared to the CMS. RESULTS: Correlations between competing measures and relative total CMS were moderate (0.56 to 0.75). The American Shoulder & Elbow Score, the Upper Extremity Functional Index, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, and the Rotator Cuff Quality of Life index explained 38%, 28%, 26%, and 10% of variance of the objective component of the CMS respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-report component of the CMS measures a multidimensional concept. The strength component had moderate correlations with isometric strength measures of the shoulder external rotators and abductors. The total CMS appears to measure a construct that is not totally captured by competing measures. The unexplained variance may be due, in part, to the lack of importance of the patient's physical impairment to symptoms or activity limitations as measured by other instruments.
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 | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".