Adaptação cultural e validação da versão portuguesa do Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) is a self-administered questionnaire specifically used to determine the impact of shoulder instability on quality of life. The aim of this study was to translate the WOSI into European Portuguese and analyze its validity and reliability in a population with shoulder instability. The WOSI was translated and culturally adapted from its original version into European Portuguese (WOSIPT). Internal consistency and test-retest analyses were conducted to determine the level of reliability of the scale. WOSI-PT, QuickDASH, and SF-12 questionnaires were applied to 81 patients with symptomatic shoulder instability to assess validity, and reliability was tested by randomly selecting 50 patients within 72 hours using a test-retest design. The reliability of the WOSI-PT was very high, with Cronbach´s alpha equal to 0.97 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.98. Regarding the construct validity, the correlation between the WOSI-PT and QuickDASH was high and negative (-0.79). The correlations between WOSI-PT and SF-12 were positive, respectively, moderate with physical (0.66) and low with mental (0.34) health. WOSI-PT is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing the functional impact of shoulder joint instability on quality of life.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".