The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Psychometric testing of the Helsinki chronic pain index by completion of a questionnaire in Finnish by owners of dogs with chronic signs of pain caused by osteoarthritis
Open accessAbstract
Objective—To determine the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of a published chronic pain index by completion of a questionnaire in Finnish by owners of dogs with chronic signs of pain caused by osteoarthritis. Animals—61 client-owned dogs with osteoarthritis. Procedures—Validity, internal consistency, and repeatability testing of the questionnaire were evaluated by completion of questions in Finnish by owners of 61 dogs; the questionnaire was named the Helsinki chronic pain index (HCPI). Sensitivity testing of the questionnaire was determined from data of 2 smaller groups of dogs treated with carprofen (n = 17) or placebo (17). Owners completed the questionnaire 5 times during a 16-week period. Psychometric properties of the HCPI were evaluated. Results—Principal component analysis yielded only a single stable component, indicating that the HCPI was best explained as an 11-item single construct index of chronic pain. Changes in the HCPI correlated well with change in quality of life and with change in the mobility visual analogue scale (r = 0.72 and r = 0.67, respectively), indicating a high predictive validity. Internal consistency (Cronbach A value = 0.82) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84 for items and 0.92 for the HCPI) were high. Changes in scores (from baseline to treatment and back to no treatment) between the carprofen treatment group and placebo control group were significant, indicating high sensitivity. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The Finnish version of the HCPI provided a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessment of response to treatment in dogs with osteoarthritis.
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
The application of electronic computers to factor analysis
Kaiser, H. F. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000116 · Cited by 12,459
Reliability and Validity Assessment
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979) · doi:10.4135/9781412985642 · Cited by 5,884
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755
Cited by
Walton, M. B., Cowderoy, E., Lascelles, D., & Innes, J. F. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058125 · Cited by 297
Metadata
- Authors
- Hielm-Björkman, A. K., Rita, H., & Tulamo, R.-M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Veterinary Research
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 727-734
- ISSN
- 0002-9645 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2061042570
- Cited by
- 235
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 9.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Psychometric testing of the Helsinki chronic pain index by completion of a questionnaire in Finnish by owners of dogs with chronic signs of pain caused by osteoarthritis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2460/ajvr.70.6.727
- The paper
- Hielm-Björkman, A. K., Rita, H., & Tulamo, R.-M. (2009). Psychometric testing of the Helsinki chronic pain index by completion of a questionnaire in Finnish by owners of dogs with chronic signs of pain caused by osteoarthritis. American Journal of Veterinary Research. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.70.6.727
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.