Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

The Shoulder Function Index (SFInX): evaluation of its measurement properties in people recovering from a proximal humeral fracture

Authors: Alexander T. M. van de Water, Megan Davidson, Nora Shields, Matthew C. Evans, Nicholas F. Taylor

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Concerns about test administration, reliability estimations, content and internal structure (dimensionality) of available shoulder measures for people with proximal humeral facture led to the development of a new clinician-observed outcome measure: the Shoulder Function Index (SFInX). The SFInX measures shoulder function by judgement of actual ability to perform daily tasks in which the shoulder is involved. Patients and health professionals had input into the instrument development, and Rasch analysis was used to create a unidimensional, interval-level scale. This study comprehensively evaluated the measurement properties of the SFInX in people recovering from a proximal humeral fracture.

Methods

Data were collected on 92 people [79 women, mean age 63.5 years (SD13.9)] who sustained a proximal humeral fracture within the previous year on three occasions to allow for evaluation of the following measurement properties: construct validity (convergent, discriminant and known-groups validity), longitudinal validity (responsiveness), intra-rater reliability (one week retest interval), and inter-rater reliability (n = 20 subgroup; two independent raters). Comparative measures were Constant Score and Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and discriminative measure was a mental status questionnaire. Minimal clinically important difference, floor and ceiling effects and feasibility of the SFInX were also evaluated. A priori hypotheses were formulated where applicable.

Results

Results for construct validity testing supported hypothesised relationships (convergent validity r = 0.75–0.89 (Constant Score and DASH); discriminant validity r = −0.08 (mental status); known-groups validity r = 0.50). For longitudinal validity, lower correlations (r = 0.40–0.49) than hypothesised (r = 0.50–0.70) were found. The SFInX scores changed more (10.3 points) than other scales, which could indicate that the SFInX is more responsive than the comparative measures. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability found ICCs of 0.96 (95 % CI 0.94–0.97) and 0.91 (95 % CI 0.63–0.97) respectively, with low measurement error (SEM = 3.9–5.8/100). A change of 11–12 points (out of 100) was indicative of a clinically important difference.

Conclusions

The SFInX is a feasible outcome measure which clinicians can use to reliably measure and detect clinically important changes in the construct of ‘shoulder function’, the ability to perform activities in which the shoulder is involved, in people recovering from a proximal humeral fracture.
Literature
1.
Ismail AA, Pye SR, Cockerill WC, Lunt M, Silman AJ, Reeve J, Banzer D, Benevolenskaya LI, Bhalla A, Bruges Armas J et al. Incidence of limb fracture across Europe: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). Osteoporos Int. 2002;13(7):565–71.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Sanders KM, Seeman E, Ugoni AM, Pasco JA, Martin TJ, Skoric B, Nicholson GC, Kotowicz MA. Age- and gender-specific rate of fractures in Australia: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int. 1999;10(3):240–7.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S, Sievanen H, Parkkari J. Rate of proximal humeral fractures in older Finnish women between 1970 and 2007. Bone. 2009;44(4):656–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Hodgson S, Mawson S, Stanley D. Rehabilitation after two-part fractures of the neck of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg - British Volume. 2003;85(3):419–22.CrossRef
5.
Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Söderqvist A, Saving J, Tidermark J. Quality of life and functional outcome after a 2- part proximal humeral fracture: A prospective cohort study on 50 patients treated with a locking plate. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(6):814-22. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jse.​2009.​11.​046.
6.
Suk M, Hanson BP, Norvell DC, Helfet DL. AO Handbook - Musculoskeletal Outcomes Measures and Instruments - Volume 1 Selection and Assessment Upper Extremity, vol. 1. 2nd ed. Davos, Switserland: AO Foundation Publishing; 2009.
7.
Feuering R, Vered E, Kushnir T, Jette AM, Melzer I: Differences between self-reported and observed physical functioning in independent older adults. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(17):1395-401. doi:10.​3109/​09638288.​2013.​828786.
8.
Ganesh SP, Fried LP, Taylor Jr DH, Pieper CF, Hoenig HM. Lower extremity physical performance, self-reported mobility difficulty, and use of compensatory strategies for mobility by elderly women. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(2):228–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Terwee CB, van der Slikke RM, van Lummel RC, Benink RJ, Meijers WG, de Vet HC. Self-reported physical functioning was more influenced by pain than performance-based physical functioning in knee-osteoarthritis patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):724–31.CrossRefPubMed
10.
van de Water ATM, Shields N, Taylor NF. Outcome measures in the management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of their use and psychometric properties. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20(2):333–43.CrossRef
11.
van de Water ATM, Shields N, Davidson M, Evans MC, Taylor NF. Reliability and validity of shoulder function outcome measures in people with a proximal humeral fracture. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(13):1072–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(10):1109–20.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Constant-Murley score. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19(1):157–64.CrossRef
14.
Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Sartorio F, Vercelli S, Pascariello B, Ferriero G. 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 Rehabil. 2010;91(9):1370–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
van de Water ATM, Davidson M, Shields N, Evans MC, Taylor NF. The Shoulder Function Index (SFInX): a clinician-observed outcome measure for people with a proximal humeral fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
van de Water ATM. The Shoulder Function Index (SFInX): a clinician-observed outcome measure for people recovering from a proximal humeral fracture. Bundoora, Victoria, Australia: La Trobe University; 2013.
17.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
18.
Linacre JM. Sample Size and Item Calibration Stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1994;7(4):328.
19.
Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17(1):101–10.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Slobogean GP, Noonan VK, O'Brien PJ. The reliability and validity of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, EuroQol-5D, Health Utilities Index, and Short Form-6D outcome instruments in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19(3):342–8.CrossRef
22.
Group EQ. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRef
23.
Neer 2nd CS. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg - American Volume. 1970;52(6):1077–89.
24.
25.
Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M, Leunig M. Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2004;13(4):427–33.CrossRef
26.
Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–8.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJH, Sojbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2008;17(2):355–61.CrossRef
28.
Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clinical Orthopaedics. 1987;214:160–4.
29.
Tingart M, Bathis H, Lefering R, Bouillon B, Tiling T. Constant-score and Neer-score. A comparison of score result and patients subjective assessment. [German]. Unfallchirurg. 2001;104(11):1048–54.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Baker P, Nanda R, Goodchild L, Finn P, Rangan A. A comparison of the Constant and Oxford shoulder scores in patients with conservatively treated proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2008;17(1):37–41.CrossRef
31.
Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23(10):433–41.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(1):81–7.CrossRefPubMed
34.
IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 19.0. Armonk, New York: IBM Corp; 2010.
35.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
36.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales - a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.CrossRef
37.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.
38.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. 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(4):539–49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.CrossRefPubMed
41.
McGraw K, Wong S. Forming inferences about some Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(1):30–46.CrossRef
42.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1033–9.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):37–46.CrossRef
45.
Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70(4):213–20.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–92.PubMed
47.
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307.CrossRefPubMed
48.
MacDermid JC, Ghobrial M, Quirion KB, St-Amour M, Tsui T, Humphreys D, et al. Validation of a new test that assesses functional performance of the upper extremity and neck (FIT-HaNSA) in patients with shoulder pathology. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:42.
49.
Hughes R, Johnson M, Skow A, An K, O'Driscoll S. Reliability of a simple shoulder endurance test. J Musculoskelet Res. 1999;3(3):195–200.CrossRef
50.
Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 1994;3(6):347–52.
51.
Hamilton D, Simpson H, Gaston P. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) do not fully represent physical function following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg - British Volume. 2012;94-B(SUPP XXI):9.
52.
Wright AA, Hegedus EJ, Baxter GD, Abbott JH. Measurement of function in hip osteoarthritis: developing a standardized approach for physical performance measures. Physiotherapy Theory Pract. 2011;27(4):253–62.CrossRef
53.
Scopaz KA, Piva SR, Wisniewski S, Fitzgerald GK. Relationships of fear, anxiety, and depression with physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(11):1866–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
55.
de Morton NA, Davidson M, Keating JL. The de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI): an essential health index for an ageing world. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimallu important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Handoll HH, Ollivere BJ, Rollins KE. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD000434.PubMed
58.
Misra A, Kapur R, Maffulli N. Complex proximal humeral fractures in adults--a systematic review of management. Injury. 2001;32(5):363–72.CrossRefPubMed
59.
den Hartog D, De Haan J, Schep NW, Tuinebreijer WE. Primary shoulder arthroplasty versus conservative treatment for comminuted proximal humeral fractures: a systematic literature review. Open Orthopaedics Journal. 2010;4:87–92.
Metadata
Title
The Shoulder Function Index (SFInX): evaluation of its measurement properties in people recovering from a proximal humeral fracture
Authors
Alexander T. M. van de Water
Megan Davidson
Nora Shields
Matthew C. Evans
Nicholas F. Taylor
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1138-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Augmentation and repair of tendons using demineralised cortical bone

Research article

Enhanced function and quality of life following 5 months of exercise therapy for patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears – an intervention study

Research article

Pedicle screw fixation and posterior fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: effects on individual paraspinal muscles and lower back pain; a single-center, prospective study

Research article

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of a second hip fracture: a propensity-score matching study

Research article

Subjective health complaints, functional ability, fear avoidance beliefs, and days on sickness benefits after work rehabilitation – a mediation model

Research article

The effects of an 8-week stabilization exercise program on lumbar movement sense in patients with low back pain