Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the University of Western Ontario Questionnaire for Musculoskeletal Conditions in Thai Senior Golfers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt and evaluate the content validity and test-retest reliability of the Thai version of the University of Western Ontario Questionnaire for musculoskeletal conditions in senior golfers. Material and Methods: The questionnaire was translated into Thai following established cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. A cognitive review with 10 senior golfers was conducted to assess content validity, focusing on the relevance, clarity, and comprehensibility of the items. Test-retest reliability was evaluated twice over a 2-week interval in 100 senior golfers. Additionally, data on playing characteristics and golf-related injuries were collected and analyzed. Results: Cognitive review indicated that participants found the questions relevant and easy to understand, contributing to the content validity of the questionnaire. The questionnaire items showed high test-retest reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.87 to 1.00 for continuous data, and moderate to high reliability, with Kappa values ranging from 0.45 to 0.96 for dichotomous data. Thirty percent of Thai senior golfers reported golf-related musculoskeletal injuries, and 45% experienced low back pain after a round of golf. For continuous data, the standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change values were calculated to quantify the precision and smallest detectable change in the items related to golf activity, warm-up, and exercise habits. Conclusion: The Thai version of the questionnaire has demonstrated adequate validity and reliability for assessing musculoskeletal conditions in senior golfers. Insights from playing characteristics and injury data can aid health professionals in developing targeted injury prevention strategies.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".