Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Italian Version of the Shoulder Instability—Return to Sport After Injury (SI-RSI) Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To culturally adapt and validate the Italian version of the Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SI-RSI-I) scale. METHODS: The SI-RSI-I was developed by adapting the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport Index-Italian version and replacing the term "knee" with "shoulder." Subsequently, it underwent validation following COSMIN recommendations. The study involved athletic participants who experienced SI. They completed the SI-RSI-I together with other measurement instruments: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopedic Clinic Score, EuroQol-5D-5L, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale. The following psychometric properties were investigated: structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, and construct validity. RESULTS: The study included 101 participants (age mean [SD] 28.5 [7.4] y; 83 males, 18 females). The SI-RSI-I showed a single-factor structure, excellent internal consistency (α = .935), and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = .926; 95% CI, .853-.964). The standard error of measurement was 6.1 points, and the minimal detectable change was 17.0 points. Furthermore, SI-RSI-I demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with all reference scales, confirming 8 out of 9 (88.0%) hypotheses, thus establishing satisfactory construct validity. CONCLUSION: The SI-RSI-I has demonstrated robust internal consistency, reliability, validity, and feasibility as a valuable scale for assessing psychological readiness to return to sport in Italian athletes with SI.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".