The reliability and validity of the animated activity questionnaire in the Turkish population with knee and hip osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activity limitation is one of the most common causes of disability in people with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). The present study aimed to determine the reliability and validity of the Turkish adaptation of Animated Activity Questionnaire (AAQ) in patients with hip and knee OA. Two hundred knee and hip OA patients aged 18–80 were assessed using the AAQ. Internal consistency and test–retest measurements were performed to determine reliability. A subgroup of 40 patients completed the AAQ again after seven days to determine test–retest reliability. In order to validate Turkish version of the AAQ, all patients completed the AAQ, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Shortform (KOOS-PS) and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short form (HOOS-PS). Another subgroup of 136 patients performed the timed up and go (TUG) test, the 30-second chair stand test (CST), and the stair climbing test (SCT). The Cronbach alpha value of the AAQ was 0.94, demonstrating high internal consistency. The test–retest score of the AAQ was 0.97, which was also high. The AAQ exhibited negative and moderate correlation with the WOMAC, KOOS-PS and HOOS-PS (0.59, −0.60, and −0.49, respectively). Stronger and high correlations were determined between the AAQ and TUG, CST, SCT tests (-0.74, 0.62, and −0.58, respectively). The study findings suggest that the AAQ is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating activity limitations in Turkish knee and hip 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".