Structural validity of the Brazilian version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index among patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The original structure of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) has been contested in several languages. OBJECTIVE: To assess the structural validity of the Brazilian version of WOMAC among patients with knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Structural validity study conducted at physiotherapy clinics and primary healthcare units. METHODS: The study included males and females aged 40 to 80 years who were all native Brazilian Portuguese speakers, with knee pain in the previous six months and a diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with implementation of a polychoric matrix and the robust diagonally weighted least squares (RDWLS) extraction method. The adequacy of the model was assessed using the following fit indices: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and chi-square/degree of freedom (DF). RESULTS: 203 patients with knee osteoarthritis were included. The model proposed in this study with two factors, i.e. “pain” (items 1, 2, 3 and 4) and “physical function” (items 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22), showed adequate fit indices in CFA: chi-square/DF = 1.30; CFI = 0.976; TLI = 0.970; RMSEA = 0.039; and SRMR = 0.070. The factorial loads ranged from 0.68 to 0.76 for the “pain” domain and 0.44 to 0.62 for the “physical function” domain. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian version of WOMAC with two domains, i.e. “pain” (four items) and “physical function” (eight items), presents the best structure.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".