Adaptation and Validation of the Malay Version of the Osteoarthritis Knee and Hip Quality of Life Questionnaire among Knee Osteoarthritis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To adapt and validate the Malay version of Osteoarthritis Knee and Hip Quality of Life (OAKHQOL) questionnaire. DESIGN: The OAKHQOL was adapted into Malay version using forward-backward translation methodology. It was then validated in a cross-sectional study of 191 patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patients completed the OAKHQOL and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Confirmatory analysis, reliability analysis, and Pearson correlation test were performed. RESULTS: The new five-factor model of 28 items demonstrated an acceptable level of goodness of fit (comparative fit index = 0.915, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.905, incremental fit index = 0.916, chi-squared/degree of freedom = 1.953, and root mean square error of approximation = 0.071), signifying a fit model. The Cronbach's alpha value and the composite reliability of each construct ranged from 0.865 to 0.933 and 0.819 to 0.921, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the OAKHQOL and the WOMAC showed adequate criterion validity. Known groups validity showed statistical difference in body mass index in physical activity, mental health, and pain construct. The pain domain was statistically different between the age groups. CONCLUSION: The Malay version OAKHQOL questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument to assess health-related quality of life in knee OA patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".