Psychometric properties of self-reported questionnaires for the evaluation of symptoms and functional limitations in individuals with rotator cuff disorders: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".