Reliability of the Thai Version of Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliability of the Thai Version of Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index Mason Porramatikul MD Sutee Thaveepunsan MD Siri Sirimanakul MD Pumibarn Wethpiriyakul MD Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, University of Bangkok Metropolis Objectives: To translate the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) questionnaire into Thai language and to evaluate its reliability. Methods: This study was divided into 2 steps. The first step was the translation process of English WORC questionnaire into Thai after obtaining the permission from the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic. The translation process followed the guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of self-report which included forward translation with cultural modification, back translation, and fine-tuning until similar meaning was obtained. The second step was to test the reliability of the Thai questionnaire in 50 patients who had rotator cuff disease and attended the outpatient orthopaedics clinic, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital between June and December 2009. The internal validity was evaluated by Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. Test-retest reliability was assessed by requesting the subjects to answer the Thai WORC twice with an interval of 30 minutes to 2 hours. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were reported. Results: Mean age of the subjects was 61.0 + 10.4 years, 66% were female while 34% were male. Impingement syndrome was the most common rotator cuff disease (86%) followed by torn rotator cuff disease (14%). Thai version of WORC achieved good level of reliability, with the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.998 and the ICC of 0.996. Conclusion: Thai version of the WORC was a reliable measurement tool for assessing health-related quality of life in Thai patients with rotator cuff disease. Keywords: Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), Thai version, rotator cuff, reliability
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".