Reliability, validity, responsiveness and minimal important changes of common clinical standing balance tests in individuals with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Standing balance is essential for physical functioning. Therefore, improving balance control is a key priority in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), underscoring the importance of accurately assessing standing balance. PURPOSE: To assess reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of common clinical balance tests, including Step Test, Single-Leg Stance Test, and Functional Reach Test, in patients with knee OA. METHODS: In the initial session, 100 participants underwent balance tests and completed Persian-version of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) as comparators for evaluating the construct validity of balance tests. For test-retest reliability, a subset of 70 participants repeated balance tests 1 week after initial assessment. To examine responsiveness, a subset of 90 participants underwent tests and completed WOMAC and TUG at baseline and after completing intervention. At post-intervention assessment, participants also completed global rating of change scale. RESULTS: Three balance tests showed excellent test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient >0.75). All balance tests were considered valid and responsive because they confirmed 100% of priori hypotheses. Minimal detectable change (MDC) values were 2.71 steps for Step Test, 7.15 seconds for Single-Leg Stance Test, and 4.90 centimeters for Functional Reach Test. Minimal important change (MIC) values were 4.5 steps for Step Test, 13.10 seconds for Single-Leg Stance Test, and 5.5 centimeters for Functional Reach Test. CONCLUSION: Three tests are reliable, valid and responsive for measuring balance in patients with knee OA. The MIC values aid clinicians and researchers in assessing the clinical relevance of changes in balance for these 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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".