Evaluation of the Content Validity Index of the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation and the Thumb Disability Exam in People with Hand Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) and the Thumb Disability Exam (TDX) are patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) designed to assess pain and hand function in patients with hand arthritis, hand pain and disability, or thumb pathology respectively. This study evaluated the content validity of AUSCAN, PRWHE and TDX in people with hand arthritis. Methods This study enrolled participants with hand arthritis to rate the items of all 3 PROM in terms of relevance and clarity. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was computed for each item in each scale (I-CVI) as well as for the overall scale (S-CVI). Kappa was used to determine the inter-rater agreement among the raters. Results Overall, 64 individuals with hand arthritis (27% with OA, 67% with rheumatoid arthritis and 6% with psoriatic arthritis) participated in the study. The I-CVI for all items and all scales were very high (I-CVI > 0.76) and the modified Kappa agreement among the raters demonstrated excellent agreement (k>0.76).The S-CVI for all PROMs was very high for relevance (AUSCAN = 0.92, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.94; PRWHE = 0.85, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.88 and TDX = 0.87, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.89) and for clarity (AUSCAN = 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; PRWHE = 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.97 and TDX = 0.91, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.94), respectively. Conclusions This study demonstrated very high content validity indices for the AUSCAN, PRWHE and TDX; with strong consensus across raters. This augments prior studies demonstrating appropriate statistical measurement properties, to provide confidence that all three measures assess important patient concepts of pain and disability.
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 | 0.029 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".