Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness of the Polish Version of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI-PL) in Patients after Arthroscopic Repair for Shoulder Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apart from imaging and physical examination for shoulder instability (SI), medical history with patient feedback should be considered to assess the patient’s condition and recovery. The aim of this study was to evaluate psychometric properties of the Polish version of Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI)—one of the most frequently used patient-reported outcome measures for SI. During examination 1, 74 patients after arthroscopic repair for SI (age x¯ = 30.01 ± 8.98) were tested. Examinations 2 and 3 involved 71 and 51 patients, respectively. They completed the Polish version of the WOSI, the shortened version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH), the Short Form-36 version 2.0 (SF-36 v. 2.0) and 7-point Global Rating Change scale (GRC). The WOSI-PL demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha for total = 0.94), and test–retest reliability (Total ICC2,1 = 0.99). High construct validity was found (89%) as the a priori hypotheses were confirmed. All domains and total scores of WOSI-PL showed a moderate to strong degree of responsiveness (ES = 0.37–0.44; SMR = 0.87–1.26). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Total WOSI-PL was 126.43 points/6% (95%CI 67.83–185.03) by the anchor-based method and 174.05 points/8% (95%CI 138.61–233.98) by the distribution-based method. The Polish version of the WOSI can be considered a reliable, valid and responsive PROM. It is recommended for assessing the quality of life in patients after arthroscopic repair for SI and can be applied in research and in the clinical setting for monitoring treatment and facilitating patient-centred therapeutic decisions.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".