Validity and Reproducibility of Self-report Measures of Walking Capacity in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Measurement (validity) study. OBJECTIVE: Examine validity and reproducibility of self-report measures of walking capacity for use in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Treatment outcomes in patients with LSS are often determined using data from self-report questionnaires. Despite some validity evidence available to support the use of self-report instruments in the evaluation of walking capacity in LSS, it is not certain that the construct being tapped using any of the self-report measures is, in fact, walking capacity. METHODS: Validity of the Physical Function Scale of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), self-predicted walking capacity (distance in meters) and a number of single item walking capacity questions was evaluated through comparison with a criterion measure of walking capacity, the Self-Paced Walking Test, in patients with LSS. Test-retest reproducibility was also examined for each of the self-report measures. RESULTS: Subjects included 49 patients (65.8 ± 10.0 years of age) with LSS confirmed on imaging and by a spine specialist surgeon. The measures found to be most highly associated with the criterion Self-Paced Walking Test were the walking distance item from the ODI (r = 0.83) and self-reported walking capacity in meters (with the aid of a distance reference) (r = 0.80). Reported walking capacity in meters had the lowest test-retest reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.65) of the measures studied. CONCLUSION: This study provides new information to help guide health professionals and researchers in the selection of appropriate outcome tools when examining walking in an LSS population. Study results support the use of the Physical Function Scale, self-reported walking distance, and the walking specific items from the ODI and the Physical Function Scale.
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 | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".