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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Patient self-report section of the ASES questionnaire: a Spanish validation study using classical test theory and the Rasch model

Authors: Kalliopi Vrotsou, Ricardo Cuéllar, Félix Silió, Miguel Ángel Rodriguez, Daniel Garay, Gorka Busto, Ziortza Trancho, Antonio Escobar

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of the current study was to validate the self-report section of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire (ASES-p) into Spanish.

Methods

Shoulder pathology patients were recruited and followed up to 6 months post treatment. The ASES-p, Constant, SF-36 and Barthel scales were filled-in pre and post treatment. Reliability was tested with Cronbach’s alpha, convergent validity with Spearman’s correlations coefficients. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the Rasch model were implemented for assessing structural validity and unidimensionality of the scale. Models with and without the pain item were considered. Responsiveness to change was explored via standardised effect sizes.

Results

Results were acceptable for both tested models. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91, total scale correlations with Constant and physical SF-36 dimensions were >0.50. Factor loadings for CFA were >0.40. The Rasch model confirmed unidimensionality of the scale, even though item 10 “do usual sport” was suggested as non-informative. Finally, patients with improved post treatment shoulder function and those receiving surgery had higher standardised effect sizes.

Conclusions

The adapted Spanish ASES-p version is a valid and reliable tool for shoulder evaluation and its unidimensionality is supported by the data.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
M.T.Vicente-Herrero, L.Capdevilla Garcia, A.A.Lopez Gonzalez, M.V.Ramiraz Iñiguez de la Torre, editors. El hombro y sus patologías en medicina del trabajo. In: SEMERGEN, vol 35. 2009. p. 197–202.
3.
Michener LA, Leggin BG. A review of self-report scales for the assessment of functional limitation and disability of the shoulder. J Hand Ther. 2001;14:68–76.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Largacha M, Parsons IM, Campbell B, Titelman RM, Smith KL, Matsen III F. Deficits in shoulder function and general health associated with sixteen common shoulder diagnoses: a study of 2674 patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:30–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Kuijpers T, van der Windt DA, van der Heijden GJ, Twisk JW, Vergouwe Y, Bouter LM. A prediction rule for shoulder pain related sick leave: a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2006;7:97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Paananen M, Taimela S, Auvinen J, Tammelin T, Zitting P, Karppinen J. Impact of self-reported musculoskeletal pain on health-related quality of life among young adults. Pain Med. 2011;12:9–17.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Luime JJ, Koes BW, Hendriksen IJ, Burdorf A, Verhagen AP, Miedema HS, et al. Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol. 2004;33:73–81.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Roe Y, Soberg HL, Bautz-Holter E, Ostensjo S. A systematic review of measures of shoulder pain and functioning using the International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:160–4.
10.
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 Elbow Surg. 1994;3:347–52.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American shoulder and elbow surgeons standardized shoulder assessment form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:587–94.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kocher MS, Horan MP, Briggs KK, Richardson TR, O’Holleran J, Hawkins RJ. 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 Surg Am. 2005;87:2006–11.PubMed
13.
Yahia A, Guermazi M, Khmekhem M, Ghroubi S, Ayedi K, Elleuch MH. Translation into Arabic and validation of the ASES index in assessment of shoulder disabilities. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;54:59–72.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Goldhahn J, Angst F, Drerup S, Pap G, Simmen BR, Mannion AF. Lessons learned during the cross-cultural adaptation of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder form into German. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:248–54.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Piitulainen K, Paloneva J, Ylinen J, Kautiainen H, Hakkinen A. Reliability and validity of the Finnish version of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:272.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E, Bondi R, Alviti F, Castagna A. Italian version of ASES questionnaire for shoulder assessment: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Musculoskelet Surg. 2010;94 Suppl 1:S85–90.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Knaut LA, Moser AD, Melo SA, Richards RR. Translation and cultural adaptation to the portuguese language of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder assessment form (ASES) for evaluation of shoulder function. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2010;50:176–89.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Celik D, Atalar AC, Demirhan M, Dirican A. Translation, cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Turkish ASES questionnaire. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2184–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Schmidt S, Ferrer M, Gonzalez M, Gonzalez N, Valderas JM, Alonso J, et al. Evaluation of shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic and standardized comparison of available evidence. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:434–44.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplege A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:913–23.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Ware Jr JE, Keller SD, Gandek B, Brazier JE, Sullivan M. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires. Methods from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11:525–51.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Barra-Lopez ME. El test de Constant-Murley. Una revision de sus caracteristicas. Rehabilitacion (Madr). 2007;41:228–35.CrossRef
23.
European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and the Elbow (ESSSE). Constant score. 2016. 8-4-2016.
24.
Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Sojbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:355–61.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Othman A, Taylor G. Is the constant score reliable in assessing patients with frozen shoulder? 60 shoulders scored 3 years after manipulation under anaesthesia. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:114–6.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Alonso J, Prieto L, Anto JM. The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc). 1995;104:771–6.
28.
MAHONEY FI, BARTHEL DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.PubMed
29.
Baztán JJ, Pérez J, Alarcón T, San Cristóbal E, Izquierdo G, Manzarbeitia J. Índice de Barthel: instrumento valido para la valoración funcional de pacientes con enfermedad cerebrovascular. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 1993;28:32–40.
30.
Cid-Ruzafa J, Damian-Moreno J. Disability evaluation: Barthel’s index. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 1997;71:127–37.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74:107–20.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, Van Der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012, USA: The Guilford Press; 2006.
34.
Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2nd ed. 2007.
35.
Forero CG, Maydeu-Olivares A, Gallardo-Pujol D. Factor analysis with ordinal indicators: a Monte Carlo study comparing DWLS and ULS estimation. Struct Equ Model. 2009;16:625–41.CrossRef
36.
Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1994;8(3):370.
37.
Wright BD. Model selection: Rating Scale Model (RSM) or Partial Credit Model (PCM)? Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1998;12(3):641–2.
38.
Walker GA. Common Statistical Methods for Clinical Research with SAS Examples. SAS Campus Drive, Cary, North Carolina 27513, USA: 2nd ed. SAS Publising; 2002.
39.
Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:459–68.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Middel B, van SE. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
42.
43.
44.
Reinold MM, Gill TJ. Current concepts in the evaluation and treatment of the shoulder in overhead-throwing athletes, part 1: physical characteristics and clinical examination. Sports Health. 2010;2:39–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Escamilla RF, Yamashiro K, Paulos L, Andrews JR. Shoulder muscle activity and function in common shoulder rehabilitation exercises. Sports Med. 2009;39:663–85.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient self-report section of the ASES questionnaire: a Spanish validation study using classical test theory and the Rasch model
Authors
Kalliopi Vrotsou
Ricardo Cuéllar
Félix Silió
Miguel Ángel Rodriguez
Daniel Garay
Gorka Busto
Ziortza Trancho
Antonio Escobar
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0552-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

Assessing the external validity of algorithms to estimate EQ-5D-3L from the WOMAC

Research

Relationship between health-related quality of life, perceived family support and unmet health needs in adult patients with multimorbidity attending primary care in Portugal: a multicentre cross-sectional study

Research

Validation of PRISM (Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure) as a novel visual assessment tool for the burden of suffering in tinnitus patients

Research

Psychometric evaluation of the Sinhalese version of MacNew Heart Disease Health Related Quality of Life Questionnaire in patients with stable angina

Research

Association of knee pain and different definitions of knee osteoarthritis with health-related quality of life: a population-based cohort study in southern Sweden

Research

The impact of chronic disease on orphans’ quality of life living in extended social care services: a cross sectional analysis