Cross‐cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the Forgotten Joint Score for knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of this questionnaire in Arabic patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: The Arabic version of the English FJS (Ar-FJS) was modified according to cross-cultural adaptation best practices. The study included 111 patients who underwent TKA 1-5 years ago and completed the Ar-FJS. The reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (rWOMAC) and 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) were used to assess the construct validity of the study. Fifty-two individuals took the Ar-FJS test twice to evaluate the test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The reliability of the Ar-FJS demonstrated a Cronbach's α value of 0.940 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.951. The ceiling effect of the Ar-FJS was 5.4% (n = 6), whereas the floor effect was 1.8% (n = 2). Additionally, the Ar-FJS showed correlation coefficients of 0.753 and 0.992 for the rWOMAC and SF-36, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Ar-FJS-12 demonstrated excellent internal consistency, repeatability, construct validity, and content validity and can be recommended for patients in Arabic-speaking communities who have undergone knee arthroplasty.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".