Development of the University of Wisconsin Running Injury and Recovery Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Runners experience a high proportion of overuse injuries, with extended recovery periods involving a gradual, progressive return to preinjury status. A running-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure does not exist, and a questionnaire assessing critical elements of runners' recovery processes may have excellent psychometric properties. Objectives To develop a valid, reliable, and responsive evaluative PRO measure to assess longitudinal change in running ability after running-related injury (RRI) for clinical practice and research applications. Methods Self-identified runners and selected experts participated in an iterative, 6-step development process of the University of Wisconsin Running Injury and Recovery Index (UWRI) in this longitudinal clinical measurement study. Content-related validity was assessed using open comments. Reproducibility was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and standard error of measurement (SEM). An anchor-based construct validity assessment measured the association between the change in UWRI score and global rating of change (GROC). Responsiveness assessments included floor and ceiling effects. Results The 9-item UWRI assesses running ability following an RRI, with the maximum score of 36 indicating a return to preinjury running ability. The UWRI demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .82), test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.93), and SEM (1.47 points). Change in UWRI score was moderately correlated with the GROC (r = 0.61; 95% confidence interval: 0.4, 0.76). Floor and ceiling effects were absent. Completion required 3 minutes 15 seconds. Conclusion The UWRI is a reliable PRO measure and is responsive to changes in running function following an RRI, with minimal administrative burden. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 2c. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):751–760. Epub 3 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8868
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".