The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
AIMS2. The Content and Properties of a Revised and Expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire
Abstract
Objective. The goal of this project was to develop a more comprehensive and sensitive version of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS). Methods. AIMS scale items were revised, and 3 new scales were added to evaluate arm function, work, and social support. Sections were also added to assess satisfaction with function, attribution of problems to arthritis, and self‐designation of priority areas for improvement. The new instrument was designated the AIMS2. A pilot test of format and content and a performance test of reliability and validity were carried out. Results. Questionnaire completion times in a pilot study of 24 subjects averaged 23 minutes, and evaluations were positive regarding the instrument's length and ease of completion, and the subjects' willingness to complete serial forms and return them by mail. Measurement performance was tested in 408 subjects: 299 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 109 with osteoarthritis (OA); 45 of these subjects completed a second AIMS2 within 3 weeks. Internal consistency coefficients for the 12 scales were 0.72—0.91 in the RA group and 0.74—0.96 in the OA group. Test‐retest reliability was 0.78—0.94. All within‐scale factor analyses produced single factors, except for mobility level in OA. Validity analyses in both the RA and the OA groups showed that patient designation of an area as a problem or as a priority for improvement was significantly associated with a poorer AIMS2 scale score in that area. Reliability, factor analysis, and validity results were consistent in age, sex, and education subgroups. Satisfaction was moderately correlated with level of function in the same health status area, and the satisfaction items formed a reliable scale. Responses to the arthritis attribution items showed that most dysfunction in this sample was due to arthritis. Conclusion. The AIMS2 is a revised and expanded health status questionnaire with excellent measurement properties that should be useful in arthritis clinical trials and in outcomes research.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Social Relationships and Health
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3399889 · Cited by 7,073
The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: Reliability and Validity in a Patient Population
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1988) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007 · Cited by 3,339
Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues
Kim, J.-O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978) · Cited by 2,778
Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: Three validation studies
Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1007/bf00898416 · Cited by 2,245
Toutenburg, H. (1974) · Biometrische Zeitschrift · doi:10.1002/bimj.19740160814 · Cited by 1,538
Kim, J.-O., & Mueller, C. (1978) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412984256 · Cited by 1,416
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions.
D., F. N., & Fleiss, J. L. (1973) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529186 · Cited by 1,388
Pincus, T., Summey, J. A., Soraci, S. A., Wallston, K. A., & Hummon, N. P. (1983) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.1780261107 · Cited by 1,337
Cited by
Zhang, W., Doherty, M., Leeb, B. F., Alekseeva, L., Arden, N. K., Bijlsma, J. W., Dinçer, F., Dziedzic, K., Häuselmann, H. J., Herrero-Beaumont, G., et al. (2007) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard.2006.062091 · Cited by 1,338
Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire
Chung, K. C., Pillsbury, M. S., Walters, M. R., & Hayward, R. A. (1998) · The Journal of Hand Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0363-5023(98)80042-7 · Cited by 1,015
Coping flexibility and psychological adjustment to stressful life changes: A meta-analytic review.
Cheng, C., Lau, H.-P. B., & Chan, M.-P. S. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037913 · Cited by 664
Berman, B. M., Lao, L., Langenberg, P., Lee, W. L., Gilpin, A. M. K., & Hochberg, M. C. (2004) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-141-12-200412210-00006 · Cited by 622
An Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus Statement on Assessment of Pain in Older Persons
Hadjistavropoulos, T., Herr, K., Turk, D. C., Fine, P. G., Dworkin, R. H., Helme, R., Jackson, K., Parmelee, P. A., Rudy, T. E., Lynn Beattie, B., et al. (2007) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/ajp.0b013e31802be869 · Cited by 560
Metadata
- Authors
- Meenan, R. F., Mason, J. H., Anderson, J. J., Guccione, A. A., & Kazis, L. E.
- Venue
- Arthritis & Rheumatism
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-10
- ISSN
- 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-0131
- OpenAlex
- W2132115747
- Cited by
- 891
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 13.17
- 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: AIMS2. The Content and Properties of a Revised and Expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.1780350102
- The paper
- Meenan, R. F., Mason, J. H., Anderson, J. J., Guccione, A. A., & Kazis, L. E. (1992). AIMS2. The Content and Properties of a Revised and Expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. Arthritis & Rheumatism. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780350102
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.