Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine psychometric properties of the Polish version of the 36-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in the population with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This was a longitudinal study with repeated measures during retest examinations. Subjects from a Polish Specialist Hospital (age = 68.3 ± 9.2years, 71% female, 44.2% knee OA, 55.8% hip OA) were tested three times. They completed the Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0, the SF-36 Health Survey 2.0, the Western Ontario and Macmaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index 3.1, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Numerical Rating Scale. RESULTS: = 0.98). High construct validity was found as 12 out of 15 a priori hypotheses (80%) were confirmed. Most domains and Total Scores in the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 (Total ES = - 0.62, SMR = - 1.09) showed a moderate degree of responsiveness. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Total WHODAS 2.0 was 3.29 in patients undergoing rehabilitation for knee or hip OA. CONCLUSIONS: The Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 assesses disability according to ICF in a reliable, valid and responsive way. Therefore, it provides considerable support in clinical practice and national and international scientific research of patients with hip or knee OA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".