Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 588

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research

Liang, Matthew H., Larson, Martin G., Cullen, Karen E., Schwartz, Julie A.·1985·Arthritis & Rheumatism

Abstract

Five health status instruments were administered in random order to 50 arthritis patients before and after total joint arthroplasty. Relative efficiency and sensitivity in measurement of change in pain, mobility and physical function, social role and social activity, and global health were assessed. The instruments had highly correlated scores, but had differences in certain dimensions. Inter‐instrument differentials were larger for social and global outcomes than for pain or mobility. No single instrument consistently outperformed the others. A method for determining relative efficiency is described.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.1780280513

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 588

Metadata

Authors
Liang, M. H., Larson, M. G., Cullen, K. E., & Schwartz, J. A.
Venue
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1985-05
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
542-547
ISSN
  • 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0131
OpenAlex
W2075951409
Cited by
588
References
0
FWCI
14.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.1780280513
The paper
Liang, M. H., Larson, M. G., Cullen, K. E., & Schwartz, J. A. (1985). Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis & Rheumatism. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780280513

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.