Reliability and validity of the Japanese short-form arthritis self-efficacy scale in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-efficacy is the belief that one can perform a specific behavior or task in the future, and it has been associated with physical and psychological aspects in people with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. The self-efficacy of individuals with arthritis can be assessed using the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale. The 8-item Short-Form ASES (ASES-8) has been employed in recent times. However, the reliability and validity of the Japanese ASES-8 (ASES-8J) have not been investigated. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the ASES-8J. Overall, 179 Japanese participants with knee osteoarthritis (OA) were enrolled. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to confirm internal validity. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to estimate test-retest reliability. Construct validity was analyzed using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) and the problem-solving and positive thinking subscales of Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (Brief COPE). Discriminant validity was analyzed by comparing "worse" and "better" groups based on pain severity; short-form version of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21); Brief Fear of Movement Scale for Osteoarthritis (BFOMSO); Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS); and physical function subscale of Western Ontario and McMaster Arthritis Index. Cronbach's alpha and ICC were 0.94 and 0.81, respectively. Correlation coefficients among ASES-8J, PSEQ, and Brief COPE problem-solving and positive thinking subscales were 0.42, 0.43, and 0.32, respectively. Regarding the depression and stress subscales of DASS-21, BFOMSO, and PCS, the worse group showed significantly lower ASES-8J scores than the better group. Coefficients of correlation among ASES-8J, PSEQ, and the problem-solving and positive thinking subscales of Brief COPE were low to moderate. These findings suggest that the ASES-8J is a valid and reliable tool for assessing self-efficacy in Japanese patients with knee OA and can facilitate comparisons of arthritis self-efficacy between Japanese patients and non-Japanese patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".