Validity and Reliability of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)-VA3.0 in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)-VA3.0 in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). The sample consisted of 301 patients who had received treatments at the physical therapy units of 5 medical institutions in Andong City in june 2006. Questionnaires on the WOMAC were recruited by 12 physical therapists. The internal structure and reliability of the scales were evaluated by means of item-internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient: ), item-discriminant validity, and Pearson's relation coefficient. To explore construct validity, we conducted a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation analysis. The criterion for factor extraction was an eigenvalue >1.0. The average age of the patients was 62.1 years. All WOMAC subscales (pain, stiffness, and physical function) were internally consistent with Cronbach's coefficients of .81, .91, and .80, respectively. The internal consistency reliability of item-each scale were also internally consistent with Cronbach's coefficient of .89 (Pearson's correlation coefficient: .71~.84), .93 (.89~.91), and .96 (.67~.91), respectively. However, high correlation was found among 3 items (.66~.83, .66~.67, and .67~.83), so the item-discriminant validity was low ( coefficient: .81, .91, .80, respectively). The construct validity by factor analysis was low because it was not consistent With WOMAC-VA3.0. In conclusion, the results reported here confirm the reliability of the WOMAC in patients with OA of the hip and knee. The collection of information on the hip and knee osteoarthritis using this instrument was acceptable to patients. A further prospective multi-center study will be necessary to prove the construct validity.
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 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".