MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7094340754

Evaluation and cultural adaptation of a German version of the AIMS2-SF questionnaire (German AIMS2-SF).

2005· other· en· W7094340754 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadboud Repository (Radboud University) · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationScale (ratio)Reliability (semiconductor)Discriminative modelCorrelationInternal consistencyPsychometricsGermanAffect (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to examine the validity of a translated and culturally adapted version of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2, Short Form (AIMS2-SF) in patients suffering from osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care. METHODS: A structured procedure was used for the translation and cultural adaptation of the AIMS2-SF into German. The questionnaire was administered to 220 primary care patients with OA of the knee or hip. Test-retest reliability was tested in 35 randomly selected patients, who received the questionnaire a second time after 1 week. The physical scale of the original AIMS2-SF was divided into an 'upper body limitations' scale and a 'lower body limitations' scale. RESULTS: With values ranging from 0.52 to 0.97 for Pearson's r, item-scale correlations were reasonably good. The discriminative power of separate scales was also good, reflected in low values for correlation between different scales, indicating little redundancy. Only two items (13 and 15) referring to the symptom scale showed item-scale correlation of r = 0.72 and r = 0.67, respectively with the lower body limitation scale. The assessment of internal consistency reliability also revealed satisfactory values: Cronbach's alpha was > or =0.83 for all scales, except for the social interaction scale (0.66). The test-retest reliability, estimated as the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), exceeded 0.85 except for the affect scale (0.72). Substantial floor effects occurred in the upper limb scale (33.8%). Principal factor analysis confirmed the postulated three-factor structure with physical, physiological and social dimensions, explaining 49.8, 14.1 and 6.4% of the variation, respectively. The assessment of external validity revealed satisfactory correlations with the corresponding WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthrosis Index) scales. As expected, correlations with radiological grading were moderate to low. The correlation with the physician's assessment was high in the scales that were dominated by physical factors, but rather low in the areas of health, which were found to be dominated by psychological or social factors. CONCLUSION: The German AIMS2-SF is a reliable and valid instrument to assess the quality of life in primary care patients suffering from OA. When addressing the different impacts of OA, the physical scale should be divided into an upper body scale and a lower body scale. The floor and ceiling effects revealed are in accordance with the disease characteristics of the study sample and do not limit the significance of the questionnaire.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it