The purpose of the present study was to validate the Functional Shoulder Score (FSS), a new patient-reported outcome score specifically designed to evaluate patients with rotator cuff disorders.
Methods
One hundred and nineteen patients were assessed using two shoulder scoring systems [the FSS and the Constant–Murley Score (CMS)] at 3 weeks pre- and 6 months post-arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery. The reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability of the FSS were evaluated.
Results
Reliability analysis (test–retest) showed an intraclass correlation coefficient value of 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.92 to 0.98]. Internal consistency analysis revealed a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.93. The Pearson correlation coefficient FSS-CMS was 0.782 pre-operatively and 0.737 postoperatively (p < 0.0005). There was a statistically significant increase in FSS scores postoperatively, an effect size of 3.06 and standardized response mean of 2.80. The value for minimal detectable change was ±8.38 scale points (based on a 90% CI) and the minimal clinically important difference for improvement was 24.7 ± 5.4 points.
Conclusions
The FSS is a patient-reported outcome measure that can easily be incorporated into clinical practice, providing a quick, reliable, valid and practical measure for rotator cuff problems. The questionnaire is highly sensitive to clinical change.
HegmannKTMooreJS. Common neuromusculoskeletal disorders. Sourcebook of Occupational Rehabilitation, Philadelphia, USA: Springer, 1998, pp. 19–41. .
2.
OhLSWolfBRHallMPLevyBAMarxRG. Indications for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res2007; 455: 52–63.
3.
BotSTerweeCVan der WindtDBouterLDekkerJDe VetH. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis2004; 63: 335–41.
4.
RomeoAAMazzoccaAHangDWShottSBachBRJr. Shoulder scoring scales for the evaluation of rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; 427: 107–14.
5.
RollerASMountsRADeLongJMHanypsiakBT. Outcome instruments for the shoulder. Arthroscopy2013; 29: 955–64.
6.
BeatonDERichardsRR. Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires. J Bone Joint Surg1996; 78: 882–90.
7.
JackowskiDGuyattG. A guide to health measurement. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003; 413: 80–9.
PynsentPBFairbankJCTCarrA. Outcome Measures in Orthopaedics, Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993. .
10.
ConstantCMurleyA. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res1987; 214: 160–4.
11.
ConboyVBMorrisRWKissJCarrAJ. An evaluation of the Constant–Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg1996; 78: 229–32.
12.
JohanssonKMAdolfssonLE. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability for the strength test in the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2005; 14: 273–8.
13.
ReesJDawsonJHandGet al.The use of patient-reported outcome measures and patient satisfaction ratings to assess outcome in hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg2010; 92: 1107–11.
14.
LongoUGVastaSMaffulliNDenaroV. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of patients with rotator cuff pathology. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev2011; 19: 310–20.
15.
DawsonJFitzpatrickRCarrA. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78: 593–600.
16.
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 Med2003; 13: 84–92.
17.
RichardsRRAnK-NBiglianiLUet al.A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg1994; 3: 347–52.
18.
ConstantC. Constant Scoring Technique for Shoulder Function1991. SECEC-ESSE, Lyon, France: SECEC Information number 3.
19.
FialkaCOberleitnerGStampflPBrannathWHexelMVecseiV. Modification of the Constant–Murley shoulder score-introduction of the individual relative Constant score Individual shoulder assessment. Injury2005; 36: 1159–65.
20.
HarmanHH. Modern Factor Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
21.
CronbachLJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika1951; 16: 297–334.
22.
MichenerLAMcClurePWSennettBJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2002; 11: 587–94.
23.
PortneyLWatkinsM. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, East Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1993, pp. 148.
24.
LohrKNAaronsonNKAlonsoJet al.Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther1996; 18: 979–92.
25.
LegginBGMichenerLAShafferMABrennemanSKIannottiJPWilliamsGRJr. The Penn shoulder score: reliability and validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2006; 36: 138–51.
26.
KovacsFMAbrairaVRoyuelaAet al.Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine2007; 32: 2915–20.
27.
BeatonDEBoersMWellsGA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol2002; 14: 109–14.
28.
JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials1989; 10: 407–15.
29.
CookKFGartsmanGMRoddeyTSOlsonSL. The measurement level and trait-specific reliability of 4 scales of shoulder functioning: an empiric investigation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 1558–65.
RoachKEBudiman-MakESongsiridejNLertratanakulY. Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Rheum1991; 4: 143–9.
32.
BeatonDRichardsRR. Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. J Shoulder Elbow Surg1998; 7: 565–72.
33.
MarxRGMenezesAHorovitzLJonesECWarrenRF. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol2003; 56: 730–5.
34.
WiesingerGFNuhrMQuittanMEbenbichlerGWölflGFialka-MoserV. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire for German-speaking patients with low back pain. Spine1999; 24: 1099–103.
35.
MichenerLALegginBG. A review of self-report scales for the assessment of functional limitation and disability of the shoulder. J Hand Ther2001; 14: 68–76.
36.
StuckiGLiangMHFosselAHKatzJN. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol1995; 48: 1369–78.
37.
HealdSLRiddleDLLambRL. The shoulder pain and disability index: the construct validity and responsiveness of a region-specific disability measure. Phys Ther1997; 77: 1079–89.
38.
L'InsalataJCWarrenRFCohenSBAltchekDWPetersonMG. A Self-administered questionnaire for assessment of symptoms and function of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg1997; 79: 738–48.
39.
BinkleyJMStratfordPWLottSARiddleDL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther1999; 79: 371–83.
40.
HaysRDWoolleyJM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. Pharmacoeconomics2000; 18: 419–23.
41.
TestaMA. Interpretation of quality-of-life outcomes: issues that affect magnitude and meaning. Medical Care2000; 38: II-166–74.
42.
BakerDWHaysRDBrookRH. Understanding changes in health status: is the floor phenomenon merely the last step of the staircase?Medical Care1997; 35: 1–15.
43.
GummessonCAtroshiIEkdahlC. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2003; 4: 11.
44.
NormanGRStratfordPRegehrG. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol1997; 50: 869–79.
45.
StratfordPWBinkleyJMRiddleDL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther1996; 76: 1109–23.
46.
FritzJMIrrgangJJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther2001; 81: 776–88.
47.
SchmidtSFerrerMGonzalezMet al.Evaluation of shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic and standardized comparison of available evidence. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2014; 23: 434–44.
48.
AngstFPapGMannionAFet al.Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total shoulder arthroplasty: usefulness and validity of subjective outcome measures. Arthritis Rheum2004; 51: 819–28.
49.
DawsonJHillGFitzpatrickRCarrA. The benefits of using patient-based methods of assessment. Medium-term results of an observational study of shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg2001; 83: 877–82.
50.
HuberWHofstaetterJGHanslik-SchnabelBPoschMWurnigC. The German version of the Oxford Shoulder Score – cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2004; 124: 531–6.
51.
ChristieAHagenKBMowinckelPDagfinrudH. Methodological properties of six shoulder disability measures in patients with rheumatic diseases referred for shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2009; 18: 89–95.
52.
AngstFSchwyzerHKAeschlimannASimmenBRGoldhahnJ. Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res2011; 63: S174–88.
53.
PaduaRPaduaLCeccarelliEBondiRAlvitiFCastagnaA. Italian version of ASES questionnaire for shoulder assessment: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Musculoskelet Surg2010; 94: S85–90.
54.
KocherMSHoranMPBriggsKKRichardsonTRO'HolleranJHawkinsRJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg2005; 87: 2006–11.
55.
GoldhahnJAngstFDrerupSPapGSimmenBRMannionAF. Lessons learned during the cross-cultural adaptation of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder form into German. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2008; 17: 248–54.
56.
CookKFRoddeyTSOlsonSLGartsmanGMValenzuelaFFHantenWP. Reliability by surgical status of self-reported outcomes in patients who have shoulder pathologies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2002; 32: 336–46.
57.
TashjianRZDeloachJGreenAPorucznikCAPowellAP. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg2010; 92: 296–303.
58.
RazmjouHBeanAvan OsnabruggeVMacDermidJCHoltbyR. Cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two rotator cuff disease-specific outcome measures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2006; 7: 26.
59.
RoddeyTSOlsonSLCookKFGartsmanGMHantenW. Comparison of the University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale and the Simple Shoulder Test with the shoulder pain and disability index: single-administration reliability and validity. Phys Ther2000; 80: 759–68.
60.
MacDermidJCDrosdowechDFaberK. Responsiveness of self-report scales in patients recovering from rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2006; 15: 407–14.
61.
van KampenDAWillemsWJvan BeersLWCasteleinRMScholtesVATerweeCB. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg Res2013; 8: 40.
62.
DawsonJHillGFitzpatrickRCarrA. Comparison of clinical and patient-based measures to assess medium-term outcomes following shoulder surgery for disorders of the rotator cuff. Arthritis Rheum2002; 47: 513–19.
