Validity of a shoulder-specific quality of life questionnaire, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, for patients with scapula alata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No validated shoulder-specific quality of life measurements exist for patients with scapula alata (SA). The objective was to investigate the content validity of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index for SA patients. METHODS: Content validity was evaluated by an expert panel of medical doctors and physiotherapists (n = 6) and a sample of SA patients (n = 44). The Content Validity Index (CVI) and a modified kappa index (κ*) assessed the relevance of WORC Index. RESULTS: The experts evaluated ten of 21 items as excellent for content validity (I-CVI > 0.78, κ* > 0.74), five items as fair (I-CVI < 0.78, 0.40 < κ* < 0.60), and six were considered content invalid (I-CVI < 0.78, κ* < 0.40). The average scale (S-CVI/Ave) for the entire WORC Index was 0.72.The SA patients evaluated four of 21 items as excellent for content validity (I-CVI > 0.78, κ* > 0.74), nine items as good (I-CVI < 0.78, 0.60 > κ* < 0.74), six as fair (I-CVI < 0.78, 0.40 < κ* < 0.59) and two were considered content invalid (I-CVI < 0.78, κ* < 0.40). The S-CVI/Ave was 0.56. CONCLUSION: This study is the first step evaluating content validity in the WORC Index for SA patients. The results indicated that half of the 21 items had excellent or good content validity. Several items need to be discussed by an SA team aiming to find consensus for changing or removing, leaving the possibility to develop a new quality of life measure, the first for SA patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".