Dataset Information

The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index demonstrates factor, construct and longitudinal validity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) is a self-report measure developed to evaluate patients with shoulder pathology. While some validation has been conducted, broader analyses are indicated. This study determined aspects of cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of the SPADI.

Methods

Community volunteers (n = 129) who self-identified as having shoulder pain were enrolled. Patients were examined by a physical therapist using a standardized assessment process to insure that their pain was musculoskeletal in nature. This included examination of pain reported during active and passive shoulder motion as reported on a visual analogue pain scale. Patients completed the SPADI, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) at a baseline assessment and again 3 and 6 months later. Factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to assess subscale structure. Expectations regarding convergent and divergent subscales of CSQ and SIP were determined a priori and analysed using Pearson correlations. Constructed hypotheses that patients with a specific diagnosis or on pain medication would demonstrate higher SPADI scores were tested. Correlations between the observed changes recorded across different instruments were used to assess longitudinal validity.

Results

The internal consistencies of the SPADI subscales were high (alpha > 0.92). Factor analysis with varimax rotation indicated that the majority of items fell into 2 factors that represent pain and disability. Two difficult functional items tended to align with pain items. Higher pain and disability was correlated to passive or negative coping strategies, i.e., praying/hoping, catastrophizing on the CSQ. The correlations between subscales of the SPADI and SIP were low with divergent subscales and low to moderate with convergent subscales. Correlations, r > 0.60, were observed between the SPADI and pain reported on a VAS pain scale during active and passive movement. The two constructed validity hypotheses (on diagnosis and use of pain medications) were both supported (p < 0.01). The SPADI demonstrated significant changes over time, but these were poorly correlated to the SIP or CSQ suggesting that these scales measure different parameters.

Conclusion

The SPADI is a valid measure to assess pain and disability in community-based patients reporting shoulder pain due to musculoskeletal pathology.

SUBMITTER: MacDermid JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1382226 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index demonstrates factor, construct and longitudinal validity.

MacDermid Joy C JC Solomon Patty P Prkachin Kenneth K

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20060210

<h4>Background</h4>The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) is a self-report measure developed to evaluate patients with shoulder pathology. While some validation has been conducted, broader analyses are indicated. This study determined aspects of cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of the SPADI.<h4>Methods</h4>Community volunteers (n = 129) who self-identified as having shoulder pain were enrolled. Patients were examined by a physical therapist using a standardized assessment proces ...[more]

PMID: 16472394

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe evaluate the face, content, and construct validity of a portable hip arthroscopy module in a regional orthopaedic unit.MethodsParticipants were recruited from a regional orthopaedic centre, and categorized into novice (0 arthroscopies), intermediate (1-29 arthroscopies), and expert (>50 arthroscopies) groups based on reported experience in arthroscopy. Face and content validity was evaluated by feedback from users immediately following completion of modules. Objective measurements, including time taken and subjective measurements consisting of simulation software metrics including, cam lesion locations attempts, scope strikes on bone, healthy bone burred, and cam lesion burred. Scores achieved by experts were recorded, and the median score was set at the level at which proficiency was demonstrated. Participant feedback on perceived educational use was collected following completion.ResultsIn total, 20 participant results were included for analysis. Good face and content validity was expressed by participants with previous arthroscopic experience. Number of scope strikes within the simulator-derived metrics accurately discerned between levels of experience. Novices had a mean of 5 strikes per attempt (SD ±5), intermediates a mean of 5.8 strikes (SD ± 4.1). There was a significant difference between expert and novice groups (P = .01), and expert and intermediate groups (P = .002). No significant difference between overall performance scores achieved by participants in expert, intermediate, and novice groups (62% ±19 vs 55% ±22 vs 50% ±23, P = .15). This demonstrates incomplete construct validity of the simulator software-derived metrics.ConclusionsThis hip arthroscopy simulator demonstrated acceptable face and content validity, with incomplete construct validity of simulator software metrics. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the module, highlighting that the addition of haptic feedback would be beneficial to improve procedural steps. Incorporation of tactile feedback to the modulator components would likely enable the software to accurately delineate between levels of experience.Clinical relevanceThis study demonstrates good face and content validity. The addition of haptic feedback in a hip arthroscopy simulator may improve learning.

Project description:PurposePatient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are widely used in spine care. The development of reliable and valid National versions of spine-related disability questionnaires is strongly recommended from both the clinical and scientific points-of-view. The aims of this study were to adapt and validate the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Quebec back pain disability scale (QDS) for use with the Hungarian language.MethodsAfter translating and culturally adapting the ODI and QDS, 133 patients with lumbar degenerative spinal disorder filled in the questionnaire booklet twice within 2 weeks. Subjects completed the Hungarian versions of the two PROMs as well as the WHOQoL-BREF validated as a general life quality questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scale of pain. Internal consistency, reliability and construct validity of the questionnaires were determined, as were the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) scores.ResultsThe Hungarian ODI consisted of one factor that showed good internal consistency (Cronbach-α 0.890). The QDS showed a four-factor structure with Cronbach-α values between 0.788 and 0.917. No significant floor or ceiling effects were observed. The test-retest analysis showed excellent reliability of the Hungarian ODI and QDS. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.927 and 0.923, respectively. SEM values of 4.8 and 5.2 resulted in a MDC of 13 and 14 points in the Hungarian ODI and QDS, respectively. The correlation coefficient (r) between pain and ODI was 0.680 (p < 0.001) and the correlation between the ODI and the physical subscale of WHOQoL was also very good (r = -0.705, p < 0.001). The QDS total score and its four subscales correlated significantly with pain and with the physical subscale of WHOQoL (r > 0.4, p < 0.001). The level of disability measured by the Hungarian ODI and QDS was significantly higher in the surgical subgroup than in non-surgically treated patients (p < 0.001).ConclusionsTranslation and cultural adaptation of the ODI and QDS were successful. Hungarian versions of the ODI and QDS proved to be reliable, valid PROMs confirming that they can be used in future clinical and scientific work with Hungarian-speaking spine patients.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:BackgroundBalance assessment scales are important clinical tests to identify balance impairments. Chronic pain (> 3 months) is associated with impaired dynamic balance; however, very few balance assessment scales are psychometrically evaluated for the population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct validity and internal consistency of the Mini-BESTest for individuals with chronic pain in specialized pain care.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 180 individuals with chronic pain (> 3 months) were assessed with the Mini-BESTest and included in the analyses. For construct validity, five alternative factor structures were evaluated using a confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, we tested the a priori hypotheses about convergent validity with the 10-meter walk test, and divergent validity with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI): pain intensity, the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-SW). Internal consistency was evaluated for the model with the best fit.ResultsA one-factor model with added covariance via the modification indices showed adequate fit indices. In line with our hypotheses, Mini-BESTest showed convergent validity (rs = > 0.70) with the 10-meter walk test, and divergent validity (rs = < 0.50) with BPI pain intensity, TSK-11, and PCS-SW. Internal consistency for the one-factor model was good (α = 0.92).ConclusionsOur study supported the construct validity and internal consistency of the Mini-BESTest for measuring balance in individuals with chronic pain, who were referred to specialized pain care. The one-factor model showed an adequate fit. In comparison, models with subscales did not reach convergence, or showed high correlations between subscales, implying that Mini-BESTest is measuring one construct in this sample. We, therefore, propose using the total score, instead of subscale scores, for individuals with chronic pain. However, further studies are necessary to establish the reliability of the Mini-BESTest in the population.

Dataset Information

The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index demonstrates factor, construct and longitudinal validity.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index demonstrates factor, construct and longitudinal validity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets