They have been shown to be valid , reliable , and responsive , with a low administration burden .
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to perform a st and ardized and systematic evaluation of the available evidence on multi-item shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures that are applicable to a wide spectrum of disorders .
Comparative Evaluation of the Measurement Properties of Various Shoulder Outcome Instruments
Background Various shoulder outcome instruments have been used despite lack of information on their measurement properties ; reliability , responsiveness , and validity ; and correlation with health-related quality of life . Hypothesis Most shoulder outcome instruments have poor correlation with Short Form−36 , a general measure of health-related quality of life , and with each other . Study Design Cohort study ( diagnosis ) ; Level of evidence , 2 . Methods A consecutive group of 285 patients who had undergone shoulder surgery completed several shoulder outcome instruments — Short Form−36 ; University of California , Los Angeles shoulder score ; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder evaluation form ; Constant score ; Simple Shoulder Test ; Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index ; and the rating sheet for Bankart repair ( Rowe score)—preoperatively and at 3 , 6 , 9 , and 12 months postoperatively . Internal consistency , st and ardized response mean , effect size , and Pearson correlation were used to evaluate reliability , responsiveness , and validity . Results The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form , Simple Shoulder Test , and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index displayed good internal consistency . The University of California , Los Angeles shoulder score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form exhibited good responsiveness , whereas Short Form−36 showed the least responsiveness . Pearson correlation coefficients between the shoulder outcome instruments and Short Form−36 were less than excellent ( r < .60 ) . Pearson correlation coefficients between the outcome instruments were generally low except for the Constant score and University of California , Los Angeles shoulder score ( r = .673 , P < .01 ) . Conclusion There was no single shoulder outcome instrument that was superior to the others in terms of the measurement properties . Most of the tested shoulder outcome instruments did not reflect health-related quality of life well and poorly correlated with each other . This meant that the comparison of a given surgical result with different outcome instruments might be of little practical utility . Further prospect i ve and serial studies should be conducted to develop better shoulder outcome instruments that have significant reliability , responsiveness , validity , and correlation with health-related quality of life . A careful combination of outcome instruments might be necessary to compensate the current evaluation systems
They have been shown to be valid , reliable , and responsive , with a low administration burden .
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to perform a st and ardized and systematic evaluation of the available evidence on multi-item shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures that are applicable to a wide spectrum of disorders .