Cross-cultural adaptation and clinical evaluation of a Korean version of the Work, Osteoarthritis or joint-Replacement Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim The Work Osteoarthritis or joint-Replacement Questionnaire (WORQ) is a new assessment tool developed in the Netherlands. It needs translation and cross-cultural adaptation for use in each country. The aim of this study was to translate the Work Osteoarthritis or joint-Replacement Questionnaire into Korean and to verify its reliability and validity. Methods To evaluate the clinimetric quality of the Korean-WORQ, we performed tests for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients) and concurrent validity (Spearman's correlation coefficient). Factor analysis was carried out to identify the principal components of the questionnaire. Findings Both the internal consistency and intra-class correlation coefficients showed the reliability of the Korean-WORQ to be excellent. The Korean-WORQ had a strong positive correlation with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and three components were extracted in factor analysis. Conclusions Based on these results, the Korean-WORQ seems to be a suitable questionnaire for assessing the disability levels of patients with knee injuries.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".