Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale for use in French-speaking populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) is a self-administered score specific for ankle osteoarthritis (OA) with excellent reliability and strong construct and criterion validity. Many recent randomized multicentre trials have used the AOS, and the involvement of the French-speaking population is limited by the absence of a French version. Our goal was to develop a French version and validate the psychometric properties to assure equivalence to the original English version. METHODS: Translation was performed according to American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) 2000 guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation. Similar to the validation process of the English AOS, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the French version (AOS-Fr): criterion validity (AOS-Fr v. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index [WOMAC] and SF-36 scores), construct validity (AOS-Fr correlation to single heel-lift test), and reliability (AOS-Fr test-retest). Sixty healthy individuals tested a prefinal version of the AOS-Fr for comprehension, leading to modifications and a final version that was approved by C. Saltzman, author of the AOS. We then recruited patients with ankle OA for evaluation of the AOS-Fr psychometric properties. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients with ankle OA participated in the evaluation. The AOS-Fr showed strong criterion validity (AOS:WOMAC r = 0.709 and AOS:SF-36 r = -0.654) and construct validity (r = 0.664) and proved to be reliable (test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.922). CONCLUSION: The AOS-Fr is a reliable and valid score equivalent to the English version in terms of psychometric properties, thus is available for use in multicentre trials.
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 | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".