Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability of the Arabic Version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) is a survey developed specifically to assess the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with meniscal pathology. This study aims to culturally adapt and validate the WOMET in Arabic. The Arabic version of the WOMET was modified according to cross-cultural adaptation best practices. The study included 47 patients with meniscal pathology. The construct validity of the study was assessed using the Lysholm and 36-Item Short Form (SF-36). Overall, 22 participants took the Arabic WOMET test twice to evaluate the test-retest reliability. The Arabic WOMET demonstrated a Cronbach's α value of 0.894 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.906, indicating high reliability. The subscales were affected by the ceiling and floor effects by 0.0 to 2.1% and 0 to 4.3%, respectively. Furthermore, the Arabic WOMET exhibited correlation coefficients of 0.39 and 0.57 with respect to the Lysholm and SF-36 physical functions, respectively. The Arabic version of WOMET is a reliable instrument for assessing the HRQoL of Arabic-speaking patients with meniscal disease.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".