Reproducibility and validity of the Dutch translation of the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) used by physiotherapists in older patients with knee or Hip osteoarthritis:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the reproducibility, construct validity, and unidimensionality of the Dutch translation of the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI), a performance-based measure of mobility for older patients. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Rehabilitation center (reproducibility study) and hospital (validity study). Participants: Patients (N=28; age >65y) after orthopedic surgery (reproducibility study) and patients (N=219; age >65y) waiting for total hip or total knee arthroplasty (validity study). Intervention: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Not applicable. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient for interrater reliability was high (.85; 95% confidence interval, 71.93), and minimal detectable change with 90% confidence was 7 on the 100-point DEMMI scale. Rasch analysis identified that the Dutch translation of the DEMMI is a unidimensional measure of mobility in this population. DEMMI scores showed high correlations with scores on other performance-based measures of mobility (Timed Up and Go test, Spearman r=-.73; Chair Rise Time, r=-.69; walking test, r=.74). A lower correlation of.44 was identified with the self-report measure Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Conclusions: The Dutch translation of the DEMMI is a reproducible and valid performance-based measure for assessing mobility in older patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. © 2011 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.
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 | 0.013 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".