Toward a Standardized Reporting of Outcomes in Hand Osteoarthritis: Developing a Common Metric of Outcome Measures Commonly Used to Assess Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Functioning is an important outcome in hand osteoarthritis (OA). The heterogeneity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available challenges the direct comparability of information collected by these instruments. This study aimed to examine whether it is possible to achieve metric equivalence of PROMs commonly used to measure functioning in people with hand OA. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from 253 persons who participated in the Vienna Hand Osteoarthritis Cohort Study was conducted applying the Rasch measurement model. Participants completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire, the Australian/Canadian Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA), and the Cochin Scale. The assumptions of stochastic ordering, local independence, unidimensionality, and invariance were tested for each scale independently before the scales were co-calibrated onto a common metric. RESULTS: Except for the FIHOA, all measures indicated issues of local dependency in the initial analyses. After accommodating those with testlets, all scales satisfied the assumptions of the Rasch model (χ(2) > 0.05). Marginal misfit in 2 items was found in the FIHOA, but this did not disturb person estimates. As the 4 scales form a common metric that satisfies the assumptions of the Rasch model, the scores can be equated. CONCLUSION: The scores of the 4 hand function measures can be transformed to a common 0-100 metric, such that scores can be interchanged. A user-friendly transformation table enables clinicians and researchers to have access to the common metric by simply adding up the total score for each instrument and identifying the corresponding transformed score on the common metric.
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 | 0.266 | 0.425 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".