Validity, Responsiveness, and Reliability of the ACL-QOL in an Adolescent Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anterior cruciate ligament quality of life (ACL-QOL) score is a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure that assesses patients with ACL deficient and reconstructed knees. The ACL-QOL has demonstrated validity, responsiveness, and reliability in adult populations but has yet to be specifically evaluated in adolescent patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, responsiveness, and reliability of the ACL-QOL in an adolescent population. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2015, questionnaires from 294 consecutive adolescent patients consented for an ACL reconstruction were collected from an orthopaedic sport medicine clinic. The ACL-QOL was administered preoperatively, and at 6, 12, and 24 months following primary ACL reconstruction. To assess content validity, the Cronbach α and floor and ceiling effects were measured. Question reading level was measured with an online tool (https://readable.com/). Responsiveness was assessed with a 1-way analysis of variance to compare the preoperative and postoperative time periods. A test-retest strategy with completion of the ACL-QOL twice within 3 weeks was used to assess reliability using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 2,k) and the SEM. RESULTS: The ACL-QOL demonstrated high content validity with a Cronbach αbetween 0.93 and 0.97, with no evidence of floor or ceiling effects at any study time point. The mean readability grade level was calculated to be 6.9, along with a readability score of 68. The ACL-QOL scores revealed a statistically significant improvement over time (P<0.001) with a Cohen d of 0.56, indicating a large effect size. Test-retest reliability revealed an ICC (2,k) of 0.997 (95% confidence interval=0.992-0.999). CONCLUSIONS: The ACL-QOL demonstrated content validity, responsiveness to change, and reliability in an adolescent ACL reconstruction population. The readability of the ACL-QOL is acceptable for adolescents with an ACL injury. The ACL-QOL is a valid, responsive, and reliable patient-reported outcome measure that can be used in an adolescent population with ACL deficiency or following ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".