Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to adapt the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index specific to shoulder osteoarthritis into Turkish and to evaluate its validity and reliability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The WOOS index was translated and culturally adapted into Turkish, systematically. It was applied to a total of 68 patients (17 males, 51 females; mean age: 61.5±8.7 years; range, 45 to 80 years) with osteoarthritis of the shoulder treated conservatively. The reliability of the scale was checked through internal consistency and test-retest methods. Internal consistency was analyzed with Cronbach alpha value. Test-retest reliability was assessed using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with 25 patients. The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC), the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and the Society of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment (ASES) scores were used to conduct concurrent validity. RESULTS: The Cronbach alpha value of the scale was found to be excellent as 0.92 (p<0.001). The ICC value was also excellent as 0.97 (p<0.001). There was an excellent positive correlation with WORC (0.847; p<0.001) and a very good positive correlation with SPADI (0.788; p<0.001). It was also negatively very good to correlate with the ASES (-0.754; p<0.001). Additionally, subsections of WOOS had a good correlation with the corresponding subsections of WORC (0.779-0.664; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of the WOOS index is a valid and reliable tool and is recommended for use in the assessment of patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".