Test–retest Reliability of Lower Extremity Functional and Self-reported Measures in Elderly with Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the test–retest reliability for a battery of lower limb functional and self-reported health measures [the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and Western Ontario and McMaster University OA Index (WOMAC)] in elderly with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and/or knee. A repeated-measures design was used, in which 21 patients repeated the same tests on two occasions less than 1 week apart. The physical function tests – 8-foot walking distance, stair ascend/descend and right quadriceps strength – demonstrated satisfactory reproducibility with percentage differences on retest ranging from 4% to 7%. The standard error of the measurement (SEM) indicated that these tests demonstrated moderate to good reliability. The hamstring flexor strength measures were unreliable with retest differences of between 16% and 22%. The dimensions of pain and physical function of the WOMAC and six of the eight SF-36 subscales met the standards required for comparing groups of patients. However, the scales measuring role limitation (mental and physical) of the SF-36 showed poor measurement characteristics with a 44% and 201% difference on retest, respectively. The SF-36 physical function and general health subscales together with the pain and physical function dimensions of the WOMAC may be suitable for use as patient self-assessment measures in conjunction with the timed walk and stair test for elderly with lower limb OA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".