Validity and Sensitivity to Change of Patient-Reported Pain and Disability Measures for Elbow Pathologies

被引:30
|
作者
Vincent, Joshua I. [1 ]
Macdermid, Joy C. [2 ,3 ]
King, Graham J. W. [3 ,4 ]
Grewal, Ruby [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Sch Rehabil Sci, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] St Josephs Hlth Ctr, Hand & Upper Limb Ctr, London, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Western Ontario, Dept Surg, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
关键词
DASH; elbow questionnaires; outcome measures; pASES-e; PREE; quality of life; SF-36; HEALTH-STATUS MEASURES; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; OUTCOME MEASURE; SHOULDER; DASH; ARM; RESPONSIVENESS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; STRATEGIES;
D O I
10.2519/jospt.2013.4029
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the internal consistency, concurrent construct validity, longitudinal validity, sensitivity to change, and factor structure of the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation form (PREE), the patient-reported form of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Elbow Questionnaire (pASES-e), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) in a diverse group of patients who had surgery for various elbow pathologies. BACKGROUND: Measuring functional outcomes after surgical procedures of the elbow requires valid patient-reported pain and disability questionnaires. The PREE, the pASES-e, and the DASH are commonly used questionnaires. There is, however, insufficient evidence available concerning their validity and sensitivity to change. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected from 128 patients (mean +/- SD age, 46.5 +/- 12.8 years) post-elbow surgery. Patients completed the PREE, the pASES-e, the DASH, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey at baseline (first visit after surgery) and 6 months postsurgery. Concurrent construct validity, longitudinal validity, sensitivity to change, and factor structure were analyzed. RESULTS: Concurrent construct validity was demonstrated by confirmation of expected relationships; the strongest correlations were observed between the PREE pain score, the PREE total score, the pASES-e pain score, and the DASH score (r = 0.73-0.87). The pASES-e function score correlated the least with other constructs. Longitudinal validity demonstrated similar findings: the pASES-e pain change score and PREE change score were most strongly correlated, and the pASES-e function change score and DASH change score were moderately to weakly correlated. All 3 patient-reported questionnaires demonstrated a large effect size and standardized response means greater than 1.0, Structural validity was supported for the PREE (R-2 = 77.2%, 4 factors) and the pASES-e (R-2 = 74.4%, 4 factors), but not for the DASH (R-2 = 71.3%, 5 factors). CONCLUSION: The PREE, the pASES-e, and the DASH have acceptable validity and sensitivity to change. The pASES-e function subscale is the least sensitive to change and is less correlated to other measures.
引用
收藏
页码:263 / 274
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Patient-reported outcome measures in cerebrovascular neurosurgery
    Ramesh, Rithvik
    Haddad, Alexander F.
    Letchuman, Vijay
    Lee, Young M.
    Rinaldo, Lorenzo
    Abla, Adib A.
    Savastano, Luis E.
    Raper, Daniel M. S.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 140 (05) : 1357 - 1368
  • [32] Patient-reported outcome measures in cardiovascular disease
    Kornowski, Ran
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL-QUALITY OF CARE AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES, 2023, 9 (02) : 119 - 127
  • [33] Response to validity of patient-reported outcome measures in atopic eczema/dermatitis REPLY
    Soyiri, Ireneous N.
    Nwaru, Bright I.
    Sheikh, Aziz
    PEDIATRIC ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY, 2017, 28 (07) : 700 - 700
  • [34] A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures
    Bull, Claudia
    Byrnes, Joshua
    Hettiarachchi, Ruvini
    Downes, Martin
    HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2019, 54 (05) : 1023 - 1035
  • [35] Development of a patient-reported outcome measure in limb reconstruction A PILOT STUDY ASSESSING FACE VALIDITY
    Wright, J.
    Timms, A.
    Fugazzotto, S.
    Goodier, D.
    Calder, P.
    BONE & JOINT OPEN, 2021, 2 (09): : 705 - 709
  • [36] Evaluating the development, woman-centricity and psychometric properties of maternity patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs): A systematic review protocol
    Bull, Claudia
    Teede, Helena
    Carrandi, Lane
    Rigney, Azure
    Cusack, Sally
    Callander, Emily
    BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (02):
  • [37] Patient-proxy agreement on change in acute stroke patient-reported outcome measures: a prospective study
    Lapin, Brittany R.
    Thompson, Nicolas R.
    Schuster, Andrew
    Katzan, Irene L.
    JOURNAL OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES, 2021, 5 (01)
  • [38] Myotonic dystrophy patient preferences in patient-reported outcome measures
    Heatwole, Chad
    Johnson, Nicholas
    Dekdebrun, Jeanne
    Dilek, Nuran
    Eichinger, Kate
    Hilbert, James
    Luebbe, Elizabeth
    Martens, William
    Mcdermott, Michael P.
    Thornton, Charles
    Moxley, Richard
    MUSCLE & NERVE, 2018, 58 (01) : 49 - 55
  • [39] Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures
    K. W. Wyrwich
    J. M. Norquist
    W. R. Lenderking
    S. Acaster
    Quality of Life Research, 2013, 22 : 475 - 483
  • [40] Palliative Care, Patient-Reported Measures, and Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With Cirrhosis
    Orman, Eric S.
    Yousef, Andrew
    Xu, Chenjia
    Shamseddeen, Hani
    Johnson, Amy W.
    Nephew, Lauren
    Ghabril, Marwan
    Desai, Archita P.
    Patidar, Kavish R.
    Chalasani, Naga
    JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2022, 63 (06) : 953 - 961