Validity and Responsiveness of the Short Version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (Short-WORC) in Patients With Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Clinical measurement. Background Recently, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) was shortened, but few studies have reported its measurement properties. Objective To compare the validity and responsiveness of the short version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (Short-WORC) and the WORC (disease-specific measures) with those of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and the simple shoulder test (SST) (joint-specific measures); the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) (a region-specific measure); and the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2) (a general health status measure) in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair (RCR). Methods A cohort of patients (n = 223) completed the WORC, SPADI, SST, DASH, and SF-12v2 preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months after RCR. Short-WORC scores were extracted from the WORC questionnaire. The construct validity (Pearson correlations) and internal responsiveness (effect size [ES], standardized response mean [SRM], relative efficiency [RE]) of the Short-WORC were calculated. Results The Short-WORC was strongly correlated with the WORC (r = 0.89−0.96) and moderately to strongly correlated with non-disease-specific measures at preoperative and postoperative assessments (r = 0.51−0.92). The Short-WORC and WORC were equally responsive (REShort-WORC/WORC = 1) at 0 to 6 months and highly responsive overall at 0 to 3 months (ESShort-WORC, 0.72; ESWORC, 0.92; SRMShort-WORC, 0.75; SRMWORC, 0.81) and 0 to 6 months (ESShort-WORC, 1.05; ESWORC, 1.12; SRMShort-WORC, 0.89; SRMWORC, 0.89). The responsiveness of the comparator measures (SPADI, SST, DASH, SF-12v2) was poor to moderate at 0 to 3 months (ES, 0.07−0.55; SRM, 0.09−0.49) and 0 to 6 months (ES, 0.05−0.78; SRM, 0.07−0.78). Conclusion The Short-WORC and WORC have similar responsiveness in patients undergoing RCR, and are more responsive than non-disease-specific measures. Future studies should focus on validation of the Short-WORC in samples representing the spectrum of rotator cuff disorders. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(5):409–418. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7928
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 | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".