Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of an Arabic Version of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score is a tool that helps with self-assessment of the shoulder’s functional status in patients experiencing instability problems.The purpose of this study was the cross-cultural adaptation of WOSI into Arabic and assessment of its psychometric properties in comparison to a gold standard-questionnaire, namely the Arabic Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. Material & Methods: 100 patients participated in this survey, tested initially and retest after two months. The internal consistency tests were performed using Cronbach's alpha. Besides, Pearson's Correlation and Standard response mean (SRM) were calculated to estimate criterion validity and responsiveness of the Arabic WOSI in comparison to the Arabic DASH. Results: The Arabic WOSI had a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.85 at the baseline and 0.91 at the follow-up time period. All subscales had an internal consistency greater than 0.7, except Sport/Work (0.69 at follow-up). A strong correlation with Arabic DASH score was observed (r = 0.79 at baseline & 0.87 at Follow-up) which suggested good validity. Also, moderately correlated changes of baseline to follow-up in DASH and WOSI indicated moderate responsiveness. No ceiling and floor effects were observed among the responses. Conclusion: Overall, the Arabic version of WOSI proved to be a good and reliable diagnostic tool for patients with shoulder instability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".