Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to accomplish translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index questionnaire for its use in Italy. The WORC original version was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Italian. Subsequently, it was administered to a population of 60 patients suffering from rotator cuff disease to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Italian version. The content validity evaluated the correlation between questions and total score of each domain through Pearson's correlation coefficient. The construct validity was similarly assessed through Pearson's correlation coefficient by testing the correlation between the Italian WORC and the Italian version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Reliability was assessed using two methods: internal consistency by calculating the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for each domain; and test-retest by means of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Italian version did not reveal any major problems. No significant floor or ceiling effects were found. All the questions were linearly related to the concept expressed by the domain of belonging. Overall correlation with the DASH score was 0.75. Internal consistency was very high overall (α = 0.93) as well as reliability (overall ICC = 0.87). The Italian version of the WORC questionnaire is a valid and reproducible measuring instrument and can be considered a valid tool for the evaluation of the effectiveness of a treatment in terms of quality of life, in Italian patients affected by rotator cuff diseases.Level of evidence Diagnostic study, level II.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".