A systematic review of the cross-cultural adaptations and measurement properties of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The shoulder is the leading site of musculoskeletal pain. Patient-reported outcomes, such as the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), allow us to assess shoulder pain in a clinical setting. Since the SPADI was developed in English, many cultures have cross-culturally adapted the SPADI for clinical use. The purpose of this review was to assess the translation and cross-cultural adaptation procedures and measurement properties of the adapted SPADI. Methods A systematic review was performed on cultural adaptations of the SPADI accessible through MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and/or Google Scholar. Included were prospective cohort studies that used an adapted version of the SPADI. All studies were evaluated according to the guidelines for cross-cultural adaptations and the guidelines for measurement properties. Results The search retrieved 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria. According to the recommended guidelines for cross-cultural adaptations, 16 studies performed 100% of the steps and 1 study performed 80% of the steps. When evaluating the studies’ psychometric properties based on the quality criteria, none of the studies reported all recommended measurement properties. The measurement property of reliability was reported fully by 74% of studies. Internal consistency was fully reported by 74% of studies. None of the studies were able to fully report responsiveness, agreement and/or construct validity. Conclusions Whilst the majority of studies followed proper translation procedures, testing of the measurement properties were inadequate. Therefore, it is recommended that the current adapted versions of the SPADI undergo further evaluation before use in clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".