The Upper Limb Functional Index (ULFI) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to evaluate both the functional status and the level of participation in patients with upper limb musculoskeletal disorders (ULMSDs). The purpose of this study was translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric evaluation of the original ULFI into Persian (ULFI-Pr).
Methods
The original ULFI was translated into Persian through double forward and backward translations. Consecutive symptomatic upper limb patients (n = 180, male = 60%, age = 38.21 ± 7.13) were recruited and completed the ULFI-Pr and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaires. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were determined using Cronbach’s Alpha and the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC2.1). Criterion validity was analyzed by evaluating the Pearson’s r correlation coefficient between the ULFI-Pr and DASH questionnaires. Construct validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using Maximum Likelihood Extraction with Promax rotation.
Results
The original ULFI was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Persian with only minor wording changes. The ULFI-Pr demonstrated high levels of internal consistency (α = 0.91) and test-retest reliability (ICC2.1=0.92). The correlation between the ULFI and DASH was high (r = 0.71). The EFA demonstrated a one-factor structure that explained 38.2% of total variance. No floor or ceiling effects were observed.
Conclusion
The ULFI-Pr can be considered as a region-specific, single-factor structure PROM for evaluation of patients with upper limb disorders for clinical and research purposes in Persian language populations.
HoosainMde KlerkSBurgerM.Workplace-based rehabilitation of upper limb conditions: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil2019;
29: 175–193.
2.
Van EerdDMunhallCIrvinE, et al.
Effectiveness of workplace interventions in the prevention of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders and symptoms: an update of the evidence. Occup Environ Med2016;
73: 62–70.
3.
AlmomaniFAlghwiriAAAlghadirAH, et al.
Prevalence of upper limb pain and disability and its correlates with demographic and personal factors. J Pain Res2019;
12: 2691–2700.
4.
MohammadiSMokhtariniaHNejatbakhshR, et al.
Ergonomics evaluation of school bags in Tehran female primary school children. Work2017;
56: 175–181.
5.
HuisstedeBMBierma-ZeinstraSMKoesBW, et al.
Incidence and prevalence of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders. A systematic appraisal of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2006;
7: 7.
6.
da CostaJTBaptistaJSVazM.Incidence and prevalence of upper-limb work related musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Work2015;
51: 635–644.
7.
HamasakiTDemersLFiliatraultJ, et al.
A cross-cultural adaptation of the upper limb functional index in French Canadian. J Hand Ther2014;
27: 247–253.
8.
FoleyMSilversteinB.The long‐term burden of work‐related carpal tunnel syndrome relative to upper‐extremity fractures and dermatitis in Washington state. Am J Ind Med2015;
58: 1255–1269.
9.
HamasakiTDemersLFiliatraultJ.Test–retest reliability and responsiveness of a French Canadian upper limb functional index (ULFI-FC). Disabil Rehabil2015;
37: 1090–1096.
10.
Walker‐BoneKPalmerKTReadingI, et al.
Prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb in the general population. Arthritis Rheumatism2004;
51: 642–651.
11.
IordensGIDen HartogDTuinebreijerWE, on behalf of FuncSiE Trial Investigatorset al.
Minimal important change and other measurement properties of the Oxford elbow score and the quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand in patients with a simple elbow dislocation; validation study alongside the multicenter FuncSiE trial. PloS One2017;
12: e0182557.
12.
MurphyDRLopezM.Neck and back pain specific outcome assessment questionnaires in the Spanish language: a systematic literature review. Spine J2013;
13: 1667–1674.
13.
WormaldJCGeogheganLSierakowskiK, et al.
Site-specific patient-reported outcome measures for hand conditions: systematic review of development and psychometric properties. Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open2019;
7.
14.
GabelCPMichenerLABurkettB, et al.
The upper limb functional index: development and determination of reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Hand Ther2006;
19: 328–349.
15.
MokhtariniaHRHosseiniAMaleki-GhahfarokhiA, et al.
Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Persian version of the spine functional index. Health Qual Life Outcomes2018;
16: 95.
16.
ClelandJGillaniRBienenEJ, et al.
Assessing dimensionality and responsiveness of outcomes measures for patients with low back pain. Pain Pract2011;
11: 57–69.
17.
WaltonDM.Making (common) sense of outcome measures. Man Ther2015;
20: 723–726.
18.
Cuesta-VargasAIGabelCP.Validation of a Spanish version of the spine functional index. Health Qual Life Outcomes2014;
12: 96.
19.
TongaEGabelCPKarayazganS, et al.
Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the spine functional index. Health Qual Life Outcomes2015;
13: 30.
20.
ProdingerBHammondATennantA, et al.
Revisiting the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) and QuickDASH in rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2019;
20: 41.
21.
BeatonDEDavisAMHudakP, et al.
The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) outcome measure: what do we know about it now?Br J Hand Ther2001;
6: 109–118.
22.
BraviniEFranchignoniFGiordanoA, et al.
Classical test theory and Rasch analysis validation of the upper limb functional index in subjects with upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2015;
96: 98–104.
23.
GabelCPMichenerLAMellohM, et al.
Modification of the upper limb functional index to a three-point response improves clinimetric properties. J Hand Ther2010;
23: 41–52.
24.
FranchignoniFFerrieroGGiordanoA, et al.
Psychometric properties of QuickDASH–a classical test theory and Rasch analysis study. Man Ther2011;
16: 177–182.
25.
FranchignoniFGiordanoASartorioF, et al.
Suggestions for refinement of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH): a factor analysis and Rasch validation study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2010;
91: 1370–1377.
26.
GabelCPYellandMMellohM, et al.
A modified QuickDASH-9 provides a valid outcome instrument for upper limb function. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2009;
10: 161.
27.
StratfordPW.Development and initial validation of the upper ectremity functional index. Physiother Can2001;
52: 259–267.
28.
MichenerLALegginBG.A review of self-report scales for the assessment of functional limitation and disability of the shoulder. J Hand Ther2001;
14: 68–76.
29.
Cuesta-VargasAIGabelPC.Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the upper limb functional index. Health Qual Life Outcomes2013;
11: 126.
30.
PranskyGFeuersteinMHimmelsteinJ, et al.
Measuring functional outcomes in work-related upper extremity disorders: development and validation of the upper extremity function scale. J Occup Environ Med1997;
39: 1195–1202.
31.
TongaEDurutürkNGabelPC, et al.
Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the upper limb functional index (ULFI). J Hand Ther2015;
28: 279–285.
32.
SartorioFMorosoMVercelliS, et al.
Cross-cultural adaptation, and validity of the Italian version of the upper limb functional index (ULFI-I). Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia2015;
37: 115–119.
33.
InT-SJungJ-HKimK-J, et al.
The reliability and validity of the Korean version of the upper limb functional index. J Phys Ther Sci2017;
29: 1062–1065.
34.
DaleLMStrain-RiggsS-R.Comparing responsiveness of the quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand and the upper limb functional index. Work2013;
46: 243–250.
35.
SartorioFMorosoMVercelliS, et al.
Adattamento cross-culturale e validazione in lingua italiana dell'Upper limb functional index (ULFI-I. ). Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia2015;
37: 115–119.
36.
OsborneJW.Regression & linear modeling: best practices and modern methods.
London:
SAGE Publications, 2016.
37.
PolitDFYangFM.Measurement and the measurement of change.
Philadelphia, PA:
Wolters Kluwer, 2016.
38.
MousaviSJParnianpourMAbediM, et al.
Cultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome measure. Clin Rehabil2008;
22: 749–757.
39.
Cuesta-VargasAIGabelCPBennettP.Cross cultural adaptation and validation of a Spanish version of the lower limb functional index. Health Qual Life Outcomes2014;
12: 75.
40.
Organization WH. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
41.
HammondAPriorYTysonS.Linguistic validation, validity and reliability of the British English versions of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire and QuickDASH in people with rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2018;
19: 118.
42.
WangIKapelluschJRahmanMH, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) in patients with orthopedic shoulder impairments seeking outpatient rehabilitation. J Hand Ther2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2020.01.002.
43.
BeatonDEBombardierCGuilleminF, et al.
Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine1976;
25: 3186–3191.
44.
MokhtariniaHRafiniaMShahbaziA, et al.
The cross-cultural adaptation of the smartphone addiction scale to Persian. Iran Rehab J2020;
18: 3.
45.
MokhtariniaHRAbazarpourSGabelCP.Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the quick exposure check (QEC) in Iranian construction workers. Work2020;
67: 387–388.
46.
TerweeCBPrinsenCAChiarottoA, et al.
COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res2018;
27: 1159–1170.
47.
ShafeeiAMokhtariniaHRMaleki-GhahfarokhiA, et al.
Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Persian version of the Orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire. Asian Spine J2017;
11: 520–530.
48.
de VetHCAderHJTerweeCB, et al.
Are factor analytical techniques appropriately used in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analyses of the SF-36. Qual Life Res2005;
14: 1203–1218.
KooTKLiMY.A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med2016;
15: 155–163.
51.
FleissJLLevinBPaikMC.Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed.Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
52.
TerweeCBBotSDde BoerMR, et al.
Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol2007;
60: 34–42.
53.
LiLWangHMShenY.Chinese SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation, validation, and normalisation. J Epidemiol Community Health2003;
57: 259–263.
CostelloABOsborneJ.Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval2005;
10: 7.
56.
YoungBAWalkerMJStrunceJB, et al.
Responsiveness of the neck disability index in patients with mechanical neck disorders. Spine J2009;
9: 802–808.
57.
FiledA.Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed.London:
SAGE, 2009.
58.
GuilleminF.Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol1995;
24: 61–63.
59.
TongaEGabelPTekindalA, et al.
AB1167-HPR cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the upper limb functional index (ULFI). Ann Rheum Dis2014;
73: 1223–1223.
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.
