Validation of the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale Instrument for Preoperative Evaluation of End-Stage Ankle Arthritis Patients Using Item Response Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:: Significant ankle arthritis results in functional limitations and patient morbidity. There is a need to measure symptoms and the impact of interventions on patient's quality of life using valid and reliable patient-reported measurement instruments. The objective of this research was to validate the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale instrument in the preoperative setting using factor analysis, item response theory, and differential item function methods. METHODS:: This research is based on secondary analysis of patients scheduled for ankle arthrodesis or total ankle replacement in Vancouver, Canada. Participants completed the instrument between September 2014 and August 2017. Item response theory was used to estimate item difficulty and discrimination parameters, controlling for study participants' underlying level of ankle function. Differential item function was examined for sex, age group, and surgery. There were 88 participants. RESULTS:: Modification indices suggested that item 10, "walking around the house," would better fit the pain domain rather than the disability domain. Items in the pain domain displayed a range of discrimination and difficulty. Items in the disability domain exhibited a range of discrimination, though the disability domain had low difficulty. Differential item functioning for sex, age group, and ankle arthrodesis or total ankle replacement appeared to be ignorable. CONCLUSION:: This evaluation of the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale found the instrument to be a strong measure of the effect of pain and dysfunction among patients with end-stage ankle arthritis, even when removing items 7 and 8, supporting its prior use in numerous clinical studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level II, prospective comparative study.
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 | 0.054 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".