Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of Construct and Criterion Validity for the ‘Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs’ (LOAD) Clinical Metrology Instrument and Comparison to Two Other Instruments

Open access
Walton, Myles Benjamin, Cowderoy, Emily, Lascelles, Duncan, Innes, John F.·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the 'Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs' (LOAD) questionnaire for construct and criterion validity, and to similarly test the Helsinki Chronic Pain Index (HCPI) and the Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI). DESIGN: Prospective Study. ANIMALS: 222 dogs with osteoarthritis. PROCEDURE: Osteoarthritis was diagnosed in a cohort of dogs on the basis of clinical history and orthopedic examination. Force-platform analysis was performed and a "symmetry index" for peak vertical force (PVF) was calculated. Owners completed LOAD, CBPI and HCPI instruments. As a test of construct validity, inter-instrument correlations were calculated. As a test of criterion validity, the correlations between instrument scores and PVF symmetry scores were calculated. Additionally, internal consistency of all instruments was calculated and compared to those previously reported. Factor analysis is reported for the first time for LOAD, and is compared to that previously reported for CBPI and HCPI. RESULTS: Significant moderate correlations were found between all instruments, implying construct validity for all instruments. Significant weak correlations were found between LOAD scores and PVF symmetry index, and between CBPI scores and PVF symmetry index. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: LOAD is an owner-completed clinical metrology instrument that can be recommended for the measurement of canine osteoarthritis. It is convenient to use, validated and, as demonstrated here for the first time, has a correlation with force-platform data.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0058125

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 23 references

Metadata

Authors
Walton, M. B., Cowderoy, E., Lascelles, D., & Innes, J. F.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-03-07
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
e58125
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994734693
Cited by
297
References
23
FWCI
18.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Evaluation of Construct and Criterion Validity for the ‘Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs’ (LOAD) Clinical Metrology Instrument and Comparison to Two Other Instruments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0058125
The paper
Walton, M. B., Cowderoy, E., Lascelles, D., & Innes, J. F. (2013). Evaluation of Construct and Criterion Validity for the ‘Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs’ (LOAD) Clinical Metrology Instrument and Comparison to Two Other Instruments. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058125

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.