The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness in Patients With Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Problems

Hefford, Cheryl; Abbott, J. Haxby; Arnold, Richard; Baxter, G. David

doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3953

Cited by 182 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, our Time 1 UEFI-20 score compares favourably to the value (54.2) obtained from patients with a shoulder problem on their first visit to physiotherapy. 8 Our mean Time 3 UEFI-20 score (61.4) compares favourably to the mean UEFI value obtained from patients attending physiotherapy for rotator cuff disease (65.2). 5 …”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 48%

“…8 With respect to the distribution of the test-retest scores, we note that the Shapiro-Wilks test was intended to supplement rather than replace visual inspection of normal probability plots 22 ; the test statistic is a summary of the data, whereas the visual plot shows all the data. 30 Given that our normal probability plots were symmetric and that the requirement of a normal distribution may be less critical for test statistics derived from F tests, 30 we conclude that the test-retest scores sufficiently approximated a normal distribution.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 The Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for quantifying UE function 3 that has been used in several studies of people with musculoskeletal UE problems. [4][5][6][7][8] Recently, we performed a Rasch analysis of the tool that informed its modification to a 15-item interval-level PROM (UEFI-15). 9 Psychometric properties of the UEFI-15 have not been compared to the original version, nor has the positive minimal clinically important difference (pMCID) been determined for either measure.…”

Section: Ré Sumémentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliability and Validity of Two Versions of the Upper Extremity Functional Index

Chesworth

Hamilton²,

Walton³

et al. 2014

Physiotherapy Canada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To examine the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the 20-item version and the Rasch-refined 15-item version of the Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI-20 and UEFI-15, respectively) and to determine the impact of arm dominance on the positive minimal clinically important difference (pMCID). Methods: Adults with upper-extremity (UE) dysfunction completed the UEFI-20, Upper Extremity Functional Scale (UEFS), Pain Limitation Scale, and Pain Intensity Scale at their initial physiotherapy assessment (Time 1); 24-48 hours later (Time 2); and 3 weeks into treatment or at discharge, whichever came first (Time 3). Demographics, including working status, were obtained at Time 1. Global ratings of change (GRC) were provided by the treating physiotherapist and patient at Time 3. The UEFI-15 was calculated from relevant items in the UEFI-20. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC) quantified test-retest reliability (Time 1-Time 2). Cross-sectional convergent validity was determined by the association (Pearson's r) between Time 1 measures of function and pain. Known-groups validity was evaluated with a one-way ANOVA across three levels of working status. Longitudinal validity was determined by the association (Pearson's r) between function and pain change scores (Time 1-Time 3). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves estimated the pMCID using Time 1-Time 3 change scores and average patient/therapist GRC. Results: Reliability for the UEFI-20 and UEFI-15 was the same (ICC ¼ 0.94 for both measures). MDC values were 9.4/80 for the UEFI-20 and 8.8/100 for the UEFI-15. Crosssectional, known-groups, and longitudinal validity were confirmed for both UEFI measures. pMCID values were 8/80 for the UEFI-20 and 6.7/100 for the UEFI-15; pMCID was higher for people whose non-dominant arm was affected. Conclusions: Both UEFI measures show acceptable reliability and validity. Arm dominance affects pMCID. The UEFI-15 is recommended because it measures only one dimension: UE function.

show abstract

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 48%

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ré Sumémentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability and Validity of Two Versions of the Upper Extremity Functional Index

Chesworth

Hamilton²,

Walton³

et al. 2014

Physiotherapy Canada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 These instruments offer an overall picture of health and can be used with patients with conditions affecting any region of the body. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), 8,24,26 the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and the Global Perceived Effect (GPE) scale 10,12 are examples of more generic outcome measures that can be used to assess shoulder disorders or to complement instruments specific to that joint. Although the measurement properties of these instruments have been assessed in a Brazilian population with low back pain, 10,13 they have never been determined in a population with shoulder joint disorders.…”

Section: T T Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinimetric Testing Supports the Use of 5 Questionnaires Adapted Into Brazilian Portuguese for Patients With Shoulder Disorders

Puga¹,

Lópes²,

Shiwa³

et al. 2013

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

isorders of the shoulder region cause pain and limitation in movement and can affect functional abilities, professional and sports activities, as well as activities of daily living, and can ultimately affect quality of life.7 Studies conducted in Europe and North America estimated that roughly half of the population has at least 1 episode of shoulder pain a year, which results in high cost of treatment. 7,39,47 Current practice standards suggest that standard clinical measurements of muscle strength and joint mobility should be supplemented by the use of self-report questionnaires to measure pain, disability, and quality of life in these patients. 11,22,30 In the last decade, a large number of questionnaires have been developed to assess function and clinical changes in individuals with shoulder disorders. 6,17,42 A systematic review 17 identified 38 questionnaires for upper-limb disorders, including self-assessment instruments used in isolation or in conjunction with objective measures. Another review, 6 limited to self-report instruments, identified 16 questionnaires. Together with a recent systematic review on 4 questionnaires that measure function in patients with shoulder pain, 42 these reviews provide evidence that there is no single, ideal instrument for patients with shoulder disorders. The choice of a questionnaire to use in clinical practice or research must be based on the type of patients, the intended construct/outcome to measure, practical considerations (ease and time of application), measurement properties of the instrument, and whether the instrument has been translated and cross-culturally adapted for the targeted population. 6,17,18 Two of the most frequently cited questionnaires in the literature are the T T STUDY DESIGN: Clinical measurement. T T OBJECTIVES:To cross-culturally adapt the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) into Brazilian Portuguese and to test the measurement properties of the Brazilian Portuguese versions of the SPADI, the short form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, the Patient-Specific Functional Scale, a numeric pain rating scale, and the Global Perceived Effect scale in patients with shoulder disorders. T T BACKGROUND:Most instruments for shoulder disorders were developed in English. For their use in Brazil, translation into Brazilian Portuguese, cross-cultural adaptation, and testing of measurement properties of these instruments are required. T T METHODS:The SPADI was translated and cross-culturally adapted according to current guidelines. Measurement properties of internal consistency, reproducibility, construct validity, ceiling and floor effects, and responsiveness of all instruments were tested in 100 patients with shoulder disorders. The patients filled out the questionnaires on 3 occasions: at baseline, 24 to 48 hours after baseline, and 4 weeks after baseline. T T RESULTS:The instruments showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach alpha between .78 and .93) and a good level of agreement, as reflected by low standard errors of measureme...

show abstract

“…Individual items are scored separately. The PSFS has been shown to be valid and responsive to change for patients with arm impairments [30], neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, knee pain, and low back pain [31][32]. Our earlier analyses provided evidence of its validity for participants with upper-limb amputation [22].…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 95%

Self-reported and performance-based outcomes using DEKA Arm

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Mechanical properties of the DEKA Arm and associated engineering innovations are easy to observe. What is less clear is how these advances translate into functional benefits for the user with amputation. Study aims were to (1) quantify outcomes including dexterity, performance of daily activities, and prosthetic skill and spontaneity of users of the DEKA Arm and (2) compare outcomes when using the DEKA Arm with scores using the existing prosthesis. This was a quasi-experimental study. Descriptive analyses examined outcomes by DEKA Arm configuration level. Of the 39 subjects fit with a DEKA Arm, 32 were trained in use and completed end-of-study testing. Data from 26 prosthetic users were used to compare outcomes using existing prostheses with outcomes with the DEKA Arm. Dexterity and activity performance with the DEKA Arm varied by amputation level (p < 0.01). Self-reported function and number of activities performed using the prosthesis were similar across levels. Comparisons with existing prostheses showed the effect on dexterity varied by level. Activity performance and spontaneity of prosthetic use improved for users of the shoulder configuration level, while use of the prosthesis to perform activities and perceived difficulty performing self-selected tasks improved for all levels.

show abstract

The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness in Patients With Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Problems

Cited by 182 publications

References 32 publications

Reliability and Validity of Two Versions of the Upper Extremity Functional Index

Reliability and Validity of Two Versions of the Upper Extremity Functional Index

Clinimetric Testing Supports the Use of 5 Questionnaires Adapted Into Brazilian Portuguese for Patients With Shoulder Disorders

Self-reported and performance-based outcomes using DEKA Arm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About