Development and Validation of a Short-Form Version of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Scale (Short-WOSI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have transitioned from primarily being used as research instruments to becoming increasingly used in the clinical setting to assess recovery and inform shared decision-making. However, there is a need to develop validated short-form PROM instruments to decrease patient burden and ease incorporation into clinical practice.Purpose:To assess the validity and responsiveness of a shortened version of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (Short-WOSI) when compared with the full WOSI and other shoulder-related PROM instruments.Study Design:Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.Methods:This study was a secondary analysis of data collected as part of an institutional review board–approved, multicenter cohort of 1160 patients undergoing surgical stabilization for shoulder instability. The following PROMs were captured preoperatively and 2 years after surgery: WOSI, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36). The cohort was split into 2 data sets: a training set to be used in the development of the Short-WOSI (n = 580) and a test set to be used to assess the validity and responsiveness of the Short-WOSI relative to the full WOSI, ASES, SANE, and RAND-36.Results:The Short-WOSI demonstrated excellent internal consistency before surgery (Cronbach α = .83) and excellent internal consistency at the 2-year follow-up (Cronbach α = .93). The baseline, 2-year, and pre- to postoperative changes in Short-WOSI and WOSI were closely correlated (<i>r</i> > 0.90), with both demonstrating large effect sizes (Short-WOSI = 1.92, WOSI = 1.81). Neither the Short-WOSI nor the WOSI correlated well with the other PROM instruments before (<i>r</i> = 0.21-0.33) or after (<i>r</i> = 0.25-0.38) surgery. The Short-WOSI, WOSI, and SANE scores were more responsive than ASES and RAND-36 scores.Conclusion:The 7-item Short-WOSI demonstrated excellent internal consistency and a lack of floor or ceiling effects. The Short-WOSI demonstrated excellent cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity and was similarly responsive over time as the full WOSI. Neither the Short-WOSI nor WOSI correlated with more general shoulder PROMs, underscoring the advantage of using instability-specific instruments for this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".