To investigate the psychometric properties of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA).
Data sources:
A systematic search of the following databases was undertaken concerning psychometric evidence of the MFA and SMFA: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cinahl. References of retrieved articles were inspected for additional data.
Review method:
Articles evaluating the validity, reliability or responsiveness of the MFA or SMFA in patients with musculoskeletal disorders were included in this systematic review. The methodological quality of included articles was critically appraised and the psychometric data were extracted using standardized forms. An established set of criteria were used to synthetize the evidence in order to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of included questionnaires and the gaps in the literature.
Results:
Nine articles on MFA and 24 articles on SMFA met the inclusion criteria. The SMFA fulfilled 75% of the psychometric criteria analyzed, while the MFA fulfilled only 50%. MFA and SMFA have excellent content validity and relative reliability (weighted average intraclass correlation coefficient ⩾ 0.87), and are moderately to highly responsive (standardized response mean between 0.65 and 1.13). Absolute reliability and clinically important difference of both questionnaires need to be defined, while the construct validity of MFA still needs to be established.
Conclusion:
MFA and SMFA are reliable and responsive tools for monitoring the function of patients with various musculoskeletal disorders. Still, research is needed to justify their usage in a clinical setting.
US Burden of Disease Collaborators. The state of US health, 1990–2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. Jama. 2013; 310: 591–608.
2.
KirkleyAAlvarezCGriffinS. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for disorders of the rotator cuff: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Clin J Sport Med. 2003; 13: 84–92.
3.
WareJEJrSherbourneCD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med care. 1992; 30: 473–483.
4.
ChenTHLiLKochenMM. A systematic review: how to choose appropriate health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in routine general practice?Journal of Zhejiang University Science B. 2005; 6: 936–940.
5.
MartinDPEngelbergRAgelJ. Development of a musculoskeletal extremity health status instrument: The musculoskeletal function assessment instrument. J Orthop Res. 1996; 14: 173–181.
6.
SwiontkowskiMFEngelbergRMartinDP. Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81A: 1245–1260.
7.
BareiDPAgelJSwiontkowskiMF. Current utilization, interpretation, and recommendations: the Musculoskeletal Function Assessments (MFA/SMFA). J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21: 738–742.
FarrugiaPGoldsteinCPetrisorBA. Measuring foot and ankle injury outcomes: Common scales and checklists. Injury. 2011; 42: 276–280.
10.
HutchingsLFoxRChesserT. Proximal femoral fractures in the elderly: how are we measuring outcome?Injury. 2011; 42: 1205–1213.
11.
LongoUGFranceschiFLoppiniM. Rating systems for evaluation of the elbow. Br Med Bull. 2008; 87: 131–161.
12.
ShearerDMorshedS. Common generic measures of health related quality of life in injured patients. Injury. 2011; 42: 241–245.
13.
SmithTODaviesLO’DriscollML. An evaluation of the clinical tests and outcome measures used to assess patellar instability. The Knee. 2008; 15: 255–262.
14.
VeenhofCBijlsmaJWJVan Den EndeCHM. Psychometric evaluation of osteoarthritis questionnaires: A systematic review of the literature. Arthritis Care and Research. 2006; 55: 480–492.
TerweeCBJansmaEPRiphagenII. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18: 1115–1123.
17.
MacDermidJC. Critical appraisal of study design for psychometric articles evaluation form and interpretation guide. In: LawMCMacDermidJC (eds). Evidence Based Rehabilitation: A Guide to Practice. Thorofare, NJ: Slack, 2008, pp. 387–392.
18.
RoyJSDesmeulesFMacDermidJC. Psychometric properties of presenteeism scales for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Journal of rehabilitation medicine. 2011; 43: 23–31.
19.
EsculierJFRoyJSBouyerLJ. Psychometric evidence of self-reported questionnaires for patellofemoral pain syndrome: a systematic review. Disabil rehabil. 2013; 35: 2181–2190.
20.
RoyJSMacDermidJCWoodhouseLJ. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Constant-Murley score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19: 157–164.
21.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIH. The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed.USA: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1994.
22.
CohenJ. The t Test for means. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
23.
BotSDTerweeCBvan der WindtDA. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 2004; 63: 335–341.
24.
TerweeCBBotSDde BoerMR. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. JCE. 2007; 60: 34–42.
25.
MartinDPEngelbergRAgelJ. Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile health-status measures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997; 79: 1323–1335.
26.
PaxtonEWFithianDCStoneML. The reliability and validity of knee-specific and general health instruments in assessing acute patellar dislocation outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 2003; 31: 487–492.
27.
BurtonMWaltersSJSalehM. An evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures in lower limb reconstruction surgery. Qual Life Res. 2012; 21: 1731–1743.
28.
BohmTDKirschnerSKohlerM. The German Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire: reliability, validity, responsiveness, and comparison with the Short Form 36 and Constant score–a prospective evaluation of patients undergoing repair for rotator cuff tear. Rheumatol Int. 2005; 25: 86–93.
29.
PonzerSSkoogABergstromG. The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire (SMFA): Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Swedish SMFA (SMFA-Swe). Acta orthop Scand. 2003; 74: 756–763.
30.
DattaniRSlobogeanGPO’BrienPJ. Psychometric analysis of measuring functional outcomes in tibial plateau fractures using the Short Form 36 (SF-36), Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) and the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) questionnaires. Injury. 2013; 44: 825–829.
31.
BusseJWBhandariMGuyattGH. Use of both Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire and Short Form-36 among tibial-fracture patients was redundant. JCE. 2009; 62: 1210–1217.
32.
GoslingCMGabbeBJWilliamsonOD. Validity of outcome measures used to assess one and six month outcomes in orthopaedic trauma patients. Injury. 2011; 42: 1443–1448.
33.
ObremskeyWTBrownODriverR. Comparison of SF-36 and Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment in recovery from fixation of unstable ankle fractures. Orthopedics. 2007; 30: 145–151.
34.
ScottDJWatsonJDHeafnerTA. Validation of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment in patients with battlefield-related extremity vascular injuries. J Vasc Surg. 2014; 60: 1620–1626.
35.
PinskerEInrigTDanielsTR. Reliability and Validity of 6 Measures of Pain, Function, and Disability for Ankle Arthroplasty and Arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. Epub ahead of print 4 Febuary 2015. doi: 10.1177/1071100714566624.
36.
HedbeckCJTidermarkJPonzerS. Responsiveness of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res. 2011; 20: 513–521.
37.
AgelJObremskyWKregorP. Administration of the short musculoskeletal function assessment: Impact on office routine and physician-patient interaction. Orthopedics. 2003; 26: 783–788.
38.
JaglalSLakhaniZSchatzkerJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the lower extremity measure for patients with a hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82A: 955–962.
39.
KirschnerSWaltherMBohmD. German short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire (SMFA-D): Comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC in a prospective evaluation in patients with primary osteoarthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Rheumatol Int. 2003; 23: 15–20.
40.
TaylorMKPietrobonRMenezesA. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: the SMFA-BR. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 788–794.
41.
WollmerstedtNKirschnerSFallerH. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire in patients undergoing surgical or conservative inpatient treatment. Qual Life Res. 2006; 15: 1233–1241.
42.
ReiningaIHFEl MoumniMBulstraSK. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Dutch Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire (SMFA-NL): Internal consistency, validity, repeatability and responsiveness. Injury. 2012; 43: 726–733.
43.
GoldsteinCLSchemitschEBhandariM. Comparison of different outcome instruments following foot and ankle trauma. Foot ankle int. 2010; 31: 1075–1080.
44.
ReiningaIHBrouwerSDijkstraA. Measuring illness beliefs in patients with lower extremity injuries: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Somatic Pre-Occupation and Coping questionnaire (SPOC-NL). Injury. 2014.
45.
LefaivreKASlobogeanGPNgaiJT. What outcomes are important for patients after pelvic trauma? Subjective responses and psychometric analysis of three published pelvic-specific outcome instruments. J Orthop Trauma. 2014; 28: 23–27.
46.
EngelbergRMartinDPAgelJ. Musculoskeletal function assessment instrument: Criterion and construct validity. J Orthop Res. 1996; 14: 182–192.
47.
PenaFAgelJCoetzeeJC. Comparison of the MFA to the AOFAS outcome tool in a population undergoing total ankle replacement. Foot Ankle Int. 2007; 28: 788–793.
48.
SutherlandAGJohnstonATHutchisonJD. The new injury severity score: better prediction of functional recovery after musculoskeletal injury. Value in health. 2006; 9: 24–27.
49.
EngelbergRMartinDPAgelJ. Musculoskeletal function assessment: Reference values for patient and non-patient samples. J Orthop Res. 1999; 17: 101–109.
50.
MacriFMarquesLFBackerRC. Validation of a standardised gait score to predict the healing of tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94: 544–548.
51.
GuevaraCJCookCPietrobonR. Validation of a Spanish version of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire (SMFA). J Orthop Trauma. 2006; 20: 623–629; discussion 9–30; author reply 30.
52.
Van SonMADen OudstenBLRoukemaJA. Psychometric properties of the Dutch Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) questionnaire in patients with a fracture of the upper or lower extremity. Qual Life Res2013; 23: 917–926.
53.
HungMStuartARHigginsTF. Computerized Adaptive Testing using the PROMIS Physical Function Item Bank Reduces Test Burden with Less Ceiling Effects Compared to the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients. J Orthop Trauma2014; 28: 439–443.
54.
AgelJRockwoodTMundtJC. Comparison of interactive voice response and written self-administered patient surveys for clinical research. Orthopedics. 2001; 24: 1155–1157.
55.
LomitaC. A comparison of control populations in quebec using the short musculoskeletal function assessment. McGill Journal of Medicine. 2002; 6: 94–99.
56.
KonigAKirschnerSWaltherM. Cultural adaptation, practicability and reliability of the short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire. Z Orthop ihre Grenzgeb. 2000; 138: 295–301.
57.
EsmailijahAAKazemiSMBandariM. Translation and evaluation of short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire in Farsi language patients with musculoskeletal trauma. Pejouhandeh. 2010; 15: 179–186.
58.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBPatrickDL. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19: 539–549.
59.
StreinerDLNormanGR. Reliability. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed.New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 104–127.
60.
HunsakerFGCioffiDAAmadioPC. The American academy of orthopaedic surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84-A: 208–215.
61.
de GraafMWEl MoumniMHeinemanE. Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: normative data of the Dutch population. Qual Life Res. Epub ahead of print 13 February 2015.
62.
GlatzelMWollmerstedtNDoeschM. Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire (SMFA-D) in Surgical Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Aktuelle Rheumatologie. 2004; 29: 17–23.
63.
KirschnerSWaltherMMehlingE. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire (SMFA-D) in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Z Rheumatol. 2003; 62: 548–554.
64.
KonigAWaltherMMatzerM. Validity and responsiveness of the SMFA-D questionnaire in patients with primary osteoarthritis of the knee and total knee arthroplastry. Z Orthop ihre Grenzgeb. 2000; 138: 302–305.
65.
WollmerstedtNKirschnerSSprangerJ. Evaluation of the reliability, validity and sensitivity to changes of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire (German version, SMFA-D) in the inpatient rehabilitation of patients with conservatively treated rheumatoid arthritis. Aktuelle Rheumatologie. 2005; 30: 215–222.
66.
WollmerstedtNKirschnerSWolzT. Evaluating the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the german short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire, SMFA-D, in inpatient rehabilitation of patients with conservative treatment for hip osteoarthritis. Die Rehabilitation. 2004; 43: 233–240.
67.
FarinEFleitzAFreyC. Psychometric properties of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-oriented, adaptive questionnaire for the assessment of mobility, self-care and domestic life. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2007; 39: 537–546.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
