MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074963083 · doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2753-z

Translation, cross‐cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET)

2013· article· en· W2074963083 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Derya Çelik, Murat Demirel, Gamze Kuş, Mehmet Erdil, Arzu Razak Özdi̇nçler

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaTurkishReliability (semiconductor)Physical therapyConstruct validityCeiling effectQuality of life (healthcare)SF-36PsychologyMedicineCross-cultural studiesValidityScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyPsychometricsHealth related quality of lifeInternal medicineSocial psychologyCartographyPathologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) is a questionnaire designed to evaluate quality of life related to the health (HRQOL) of patients with meniscus pathology. The purpose of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the WOMET into Turkish, and thereby to determine the reliability and validity of the translated version. METHODS: The WOMET was translated into Turkish in accordance with the stages recommended by Guillemin. Ninety-six patients [35 male, 61 female; mean age: 43.6 ± 11.7 (23-71) years] with meniscal pathology were included in the study. The WOMET was completed twice at 3-7-day intervals. The inter-rater correlation coefficient was used for reliability, and Cronbach's α was used for internal consistency. Patients were asked to answer the Lysholm knee scale and the short form-36 (SF-36) for the validity of the estimation. The distribution of ceiling and floor effects was determined. RESULTS: Mean and standard deviation of the first and second evaluations of the total WOMET were 1,048.9 ± 271.6 and 1,000.4 ± 255.2 (p = 0.03), respectively. The test-retest reliability of the total score, physical function, sports/work/lifestyle and emotion domains were 0.88, 0.78, 0.80 and 0.85, respectively. Cronbach's α was 0.89. WOMET was most strongly related to the physical function scale and the physical component score (ρ 0.54, ρ 0.60, respectively; p < 0.001). The weakest correlations between the WOMET and the SF-36 were for the mental component score and the emotional role functioning (ρ 0.11, ρ 0.03, respectively). We observed no ceiling and floor effects of the overall WOMET score, but 36.5 % of the patients showed floor effect in the question of "numbness", and 40.6 % of the patients showed ceiling effect in the question of "consciousness". CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of the WOMET is valid and reliable. It can therefore be used for HRQOL of patients with meniscal pathology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207