Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Arabic Version of the Harris Hip Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe Harris Hip Score (HHS) questionnaire has been translated and validated into many languages including Italian, Portuguese, and Turkish but not Arabic. The goal of this study was to translate HHS into the Arabic language with cross-cultural adaptation to include and benefit Arabic speaking communities as it is the most widely used instrument for disease-specific hip joint evaluation and measurement of total hip arthroplasty outcome.MethodsThis questionnaire was translated following a clear and user-friendly guideline protocol. The Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability and internal consistency of the items of HHS. Additionally, the constructive validity of HHS was evaluated against the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36).ResultsA total of 100 participants were included in this study, of which 30 participants were re-evaluated for reliability testing. Cronbach’s alpha of the total score of Arabic HHS is 0.528, and after the standardization, it changed to 0.742 which is within the recommended range (0.7-0.9). Lastly, the correlation between HHS and SF-36 was r = 0.71 (P < .001) which represents a strong correlation between the Arabic HHS and SF-36.ConclusionsBased on the results, we believe that the Arabic HHS can be used by clinicians, researchers, and patients to evaluate and report hip pathologies and total hip arthroplasty treatment efficacy.
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".