MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997148230 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2015.1027004

Psychometric properties of self-reported questionnaires for the evaluation of symptoms and functional limitations in individuals with rotator cuff disorders: a systematic review

2015· review· en· W1997148230 on OpenAlexaffabout
Corinne St-Pierre, François Desmeules, Clermont E. Dionne, Pierre Frémont, Joy C. MacDermid, Jean‐Sébastien Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversité LavalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyConstruct validityMedicineCINAHLReliability (semiconductor)MEDLINEPsychometricsRotator cuffClinical psychologySystematic reviewPopulationPsychiatrySurgeryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of the psychometric properties (reliability, validity and responsiveness) of self-report questionnaires used to assess symptoms and functional limitations of individuals with rotator cuff (RC) disorders. METHODS: A systematic search in three databases (Cinahl, Medline and Embase) was conducted. Data extraction and critical methodological appraisal were performed independently by three raters using structured tools, and agreement was achieved by consensus. A descriptive synthesis was performed. RESULTS: One-hundred and twenty articles reporting on 11 questionnaires were included. All questionnaires were highly reliable and responsive to change, and showed construct validity; seven questionnaires also shown known-group validity. The minimal detectable change ranged from 6.4% to 20.8% of total score; only two questionnaires (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon questionnaire [ASES] and Upper Limb Functional Index [ULFI]) had a measurement error below 10% of global score. Minimal clinically important differences were established for eight questionnaires, and ranged from 8% to 20% of total score. CONCLUSION: Overall, included questionnaires showed acceptable psychometric properties for individuals with RC disorders. The ASES and ULFI have the smallest absolute error of measurement, while the Western Ontario RC Index is one of the most responsive questionnaires for individuals suffering from RC disorders. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: All included questionnaires are reliable, valid and responsive for the evaluation of individuals with RC disorders. As all included questionnaires showed good psychometric properties for the targeted population, the choice should be made according to the purpose of the evaluation and to the construct being evaluated by the questionnaire. The WORC, a RC-specific questionnaire, appeared to be more responsive. It should therefore be used to evaluate change in time. If the evaluation is time-limited, shorter questionnaires or short versions should be considered (such as Quick DASH or SST).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207