The Reliability and Validity of the Self-Reported Patient-Specific Index for Total Hip Arthroplasty*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Specific Index is unique in that it reflects how individual patients weigh concerns in rating the outcome of total hip arthroplasty. The Patient-Specific Index was originally administered by an interviewer, which is not always feasible and can be costly. The purposes of the present study were (1) to create a self-reported version of the Patient-Specific Index, (2) to determine the reliability of this new self-reported version, and (3) to determine the relationship between the scores on the new self-reported version and those on the original interviewer-administered version. METHODS: A self-reported version of the Patient-Specific Index was developed, and a pilot test was performed on ten patients. Patients who were scheduled for a total hip arthroplasty or who had recently had a total hip arthroplasty were eligible for the reliability and validity testing. A copy of the new self-reported Patient-Specific Index was mailed to the patients, and they completed it independently. The patients' ratings of the importance and severity of twenty-four concerns prior to total hip arthroplasty were added together to create a summary Patient-Specific Index score. To determine test-retest reliability, patients completed the self-reported Patient-Specific Index a second time, two weeks later. To determine criterion validity, participants also completed the interviewer-administered Patient-Specific Index. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients completed the study. The random-effects intraclass correlation test-retest coefficient was 0.79 (greater than 0.75 represents excellent reliability). The mean Patient-Specific Index scores on the self-reported version and on the interviewer-administered version were 173 and 165 points, respectively (Student t test, p = 0.45). The self-reported Patient-Specific Index was concordant with the interviewer-administered Patient-Specific Index (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that a self-reported version of the Patient-Specific Index, which focuses on the concerns of individuals, is reliable and has criterion validity compared with an interviewer-administered version.
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 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".