Punjabi Translation, Cross-cultural Adaptation, Validation and Reliability of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index Questionnaire: A Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index is a self-assessment instrument that has been developed to measure the quality of life of patients with rotator cuff disease. The WORC index was developed by Kirkley et al., 2003 to evaluate the diseasespecific quality of life of patients with rotator cuff disease. Aim: To translate the WORC index into Punjabi language (P-WORC) and to evaluate its adaptation, validation and reliability among patients with Rotator Cuff tendinopathy. Materials and Methods: Beaton’s guidelines have been followed for the translation process after obtaining approval from the original developer, then forward and backward translations by two independent translators will be performed.Cultural adaptation was achieved through feedback from 30 outpatient participants regarding the scale’s clarity. Content validation was conducted using the Delphi method, involving a panel of 10 experts with more than five years of experience.Experts evaluated each item for relevance and consistency, deeming it valid if at least 80% rated it as "valid." Reliability testing was performed on a sample of 51 patients. Ethical approval was granted by the Institutional Ethics Committees (IEC-2995) in June 2024, and the study was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2024/08/072815) on August 21, 2024.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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".