Validity and Reliability of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) for Use in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC). DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey at the Physiotherapy Unit and Outpatient Orthopedic and Traumatology Clinic, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: To test validity, 100 patients with rotator cuff disorders were evaluated using the WORC, clinically relevant outcomes for patients with shoulder disorders (pain, range of motion, and strength), and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), University of California Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale (UCLA), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) self-report measures. The WORC was repeated on 50 patients on the same day (more than 1 hour later) and after a mean interval of 7 days to evaluate the test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity was tested by correlating the WORC to the other outcome measures using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined by the intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach's alpha coefficient, respectively. The scores were used to assess the standard error measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: Analysis between the WORC and clinically relevant outcomes for patients with shoulder disorders revealed weak to strong correlations; the weakest for active internal rotation (r = -0.22) and the strongest for pain during movement (r = -0.75). Strong correlations were found among the WORC and the DASH and UCLA (r = -0.86 and r = 0.80, respectively). There were moderate correlations between the WORC and SF-36 domains (0.37 to 0.69); the best correlations related to the physical domains. Reliability analysis revealed excellent results, with the intraclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.95 to 0.99 and Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.88 to 0.97. The SEM was 5.2 and 3.0 for time 0 and after a mean interval of 7 days, respectively. The MDC was 7.1 over this mean time interval (90% confidence interval). CONCLUSIONS: The Brazilian version of the WORC proved to be a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing health-related quality of life in patients with rotator cuff diseases.
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".