بررسی روایی و پایایی نسخۀ فارسی پرسشنامۀ نمره ثابت مورلی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد آسیب شناسی و حرکات اصلاحی دانشگاه آزاداسلامی‎تهران، تهران، ایران

2 متخصص پزشکی ورزشی و هیئت علمی‎دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران، تهران، ایران

3 دکترای آسیب شناسی ورزشی و حرکات اصلاحی دانشگاه تهران، گروه طب ورزشی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

4 دانشجوی دکترای فیزیولوژی ورزشی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

مقدمه: درد شانه یک اختلال مشترک اسکلتی- عضلانی در عموم افراد است.سندرم گیرافتادگى شانه از جمله گسترده ترین اختلالات شانه است. با توجه به نبود پرسشنامه ای مشابه در ایران وضرورت استفاده از ابزارهای استاندارد در حیطۀ ارزیابی بالینی، بومی سازی وبررسی روایی و پایایی نسخۀ فارسی این پرسشنامه به عنوان هدف این تحقیق در نظر گرفته شد.
روش کار: این مطالعه شامل 20 زن مبتلا به سندرم گیرافتادگی شانه در دامنه سنی (20-50 ) سال بود که توسط فیزیوتراپ موردارزیابی قرار گرفتند. با استفاده از روش ترجمه- بازترجمه، اصلاحات لازم انجام و فرم نهایی پرسشنامه تهیه شد. به منظور تعیین روایی محتوایی از دو روش CVI و CVR، برای تعیین میزان پایایی، از آزمون همسانی درونی (آلفای کرونباخ) و به منظور ارزیابی پایایی، آزمون- آزمون مجدد استفاده شد.
نتایج: نتایج CVIحاکی ازآن بودکه تمامی سوالات دارای نمره CVIبالاتراز 79/0، بخش بیمار(درمقیاس ارتباط85/0 ، وضوح 1، سادگی 92/0، ابهام92/0) وبخش پزشک (درمقیاس ارتباط1، وضوح 1، سادگی1 ، ابهام88/0 ) شایان ذکر است متوسط شاخص روایی محتوایی بخش بیمار 92/0 وبخش پزشک 97/0بود. آنالیز آماری نشان داد که همسانی درونی سوالات پرسشنامه دارای آلفای کرونباخ برابربا74/0است. مقادیر ICC نشان داد که همبستگی درون گروهی بخش بیمار( 89- 96 CI: 95%) وبخش پزشک ( 88- 96 CI: 95%) محاسبه شد.
نتیجه گیری: نتایج نشان داد که پرسشنامه CMS ابزاری قابل اعتماد و معتبر، به عنوان "ابزار استاندارد طلایی" برای ارزیابی سندرم گیرافتادگی شانه است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of validity and reliability of Persian version of Constant Murley Score questionnaire

نویسندگان [English]

  • Samira Jamalnasab 1
  • Amir Hossein Barati 2
  • Seyed Hossein Mirkarimpour 3
  • Yaser Garazhian 4
1 MSc Student of Physical Education, Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Specialist in Sports Medicine, Faculty member Of Shahid Beheshti University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD in Sports Pathology and Corrective Movements, University of Tehran, Department of Sports Medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4 PhD in Candidate of sport physiology, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Shoulder pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder in the general public. Shoulder impingment syndrome is one of the most common shoulder disorders. Due to the lack of a similar questionnaire in Iran and the need to use standard tools in the field of clinical evaluation, localization and validity and reliability of the Persian version of this questionnaire was considered as the purpose of this study.
Materials and Methods: This study included 20 women with shoulder involvement syndrome in the age range (20-50) years who were evaluated by a physiotherapist.Using the translation-re-translation method, the necessary corrections were made and the final form of the questionnaire was prepared. In order to determine the content validity of CVI and CVR methods, to determine the degree of reliability, internal consistency test (Cronbach's alpha) was used and to evaluate the reliability, test-retest.
Results: The results of CVI showed that all questions with CVI score higher than 0.79, patient ward (0.85 on communication scale, resolution 1, simplicity 0.92, ambiguity 0.92) and physician ward (on communication scale 1, resolution 1, Simplicity 1, Ambiguity 0.88). average content validity index of the patient ward was 0.92 and the physician ward was 0.97. Statistical analysis showed that the internal consistency of the Cronbach's alpha questionnaire questions is equal to 0.74. ICC values showed that the intra-group correlation of the patient ward (% 95 CI: 96-89) and the physician ward (95% CI: 95 -88) were calculated.
Conclusion: CMS "gold standard tool" for assessing shoulder occlusion syndrome.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Shoulder impingement syndrome
  • validity
  • Constant Morley score questionnaire
  • Reliability

مراجع

  1. Noten S, Struyf F, Lluch E, D'Hoore M, Van Looveren E, Meeus M. Central pain processing in patients with shoulder pain: a review of the literature. Pain Practice. 2017;17(2):267-80.
  2. Badley EM, Tennant A. Changing profile of joint disorders with age: findings from a postal survey of the population of Calderdale, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 1992;51(3):366-71.
  3. Peters D, Davies P, Pietroni P. Musculoskeletal clinic in general practice: study of one year's referrals. British Journal of General Practice. 1994;44(378):25-9.
  4. Sirén M, Viikari-Juntura E, Arokoski J, Solovieva S. Work participation and working life expectancy after a disabling shoulder lesion. Occupational and environmental medicine. 2019;76(6):363-9.
  5. Gutierrez DD, Thompson L, Kemp B, Mulroy SJ. The relationship of shoulder pain intensity to quality of life, physical activity, and community participation in persons with paraplegia. The journal of spinal cord medicine. 2007;30(3):251-5.
  6. Slobogean G, Slobogean B. Measuring shoulder injury function: common scales and checklists. Injury. 2011;42(3):248-52.

7.Urwin M, Symmons D, Allison T, Brammah T, Busby H, Roxby M, et al. Estimating the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in the community: the comparative prevalence of symptoms at different anatomical sites, and the relation to social deprivation. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 1998;57(11):649-55.

  1. Carter CW, Levine WN, Kleweno CP, Bigliani LU, Ahmad CS. Assessment of shoulder range of motion: introduction of a novel patient self-assessment tool. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2008;24(6):712-7.
  2. Constant C, Murley A. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1987(214):160-4.
  3. Carosi M, Galeoto G, Gennaro SD, Berardi A, Valente D, Servadio A. Transcultural reliability and validity of an Italian language version of the Constant–Murley Score. Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation. 2020;27(2):186-91.
  4. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery. 2008;17(2):355-61.
  5. Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2003;19(10):1109-20.

13.Barra-López M. El test de Constant-Murley. Una revisión de sus características. Rehabilitación. 2007;41(5):228-35.

  1. Moeller AD, Thorsen RR, Torabi TP, Bjoerkman A-SD, Christensen EH, Maribo T, et al. The Danish version of the modified Constant-Murley shoulder score: reliability, agreement, and construct validity. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2014;44(5):336-A5.
  2. Barreto RPG, Barbosa MLL, Balbinotti MAA, Mothes FC, Rosa LHTd, Silva MF. The Brazilian version of the Constant-Murley Score (CMS-BR): convergent and construct validity, internal consistency, and unidimensionality☆. Revista brasileira de ortopedia. 2016;51:515-20.
  3. Çelik D. Turkish version of the modified Constant-Murley score and standardized test protocol: reliability and validity. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50(1):69-75.
  4. Yao M, Yang L, Cao Z-y, Cheng S-d, Tian S-l, Sun Y-l, et al. Chinese version of the Constant-Murley questionnaire for shoulder pain and disability: a reliability and validation study. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2017;15(1):1-7.
  5. Ntourantonis D, Panagopoulos A, Iliopoulos I, Tatani I, Tsoumpos P, Kouzelis A, et al. Translation, cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Greek version of the modified Constant Score. JSES open access. 2017;1(1):45-50.
  6. Maqdes A, Hanna SS, Bouhamra AK, Khaja AF. Cross-cultural adaptation and translation of the Constant Murley Score into Arabic. SICOT-J. 2020;6.
  7. Boehm D, Wollmerstedt N, Doesch M, Handwerker M, Mehling E, Gohlke F. Development of a questionnaire based on the Constant-Murley-Score for self-evaluation of shoulder function by patients. Der Unfallchirurg. 2004;107(5):397-402.

 

  1. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 1993;46(12):1417-32.
  2. Mathias S, Fifer S, Patrick D. Rapid translation of quality of life measures for international clinical trials: avoiding errors in the minimalist approach. Quality of Life Research. 1994;3(6):403-12.
  3. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in health. 2005;8(2):94-104.
  4. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563-75.
  5. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in nursing & health. 2007;30(4):459-67.
  6. Oh D-G, Yoo K-T. The effects of therapeutic exercise using PNF on the size of calcium deposits, pain self-awareness, and shoulder joint function in a calcific tendinitis patient: a case study. Journal of physical therapy science. 2017;29(1):163-7.

27.Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. The American journal of medicine. 2006;119(2):166. e7-. e16.

  1. Walter S, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Statistics in medicine. 1998;17(1):101-10.

29.Polit DF. Getting serious about test–retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations. Quality of Life Research. 2014;23(6):1713-20.

  1. Pickering PM, Osmotherly PG, Attia JR, McElduff P. An examination of outcome measures for pain and dysfunction in the cervical spine: a factor analysis. Spine. 2011;36(7):581-8.
  2. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine. 2016;15(2):155-63.
  3. Roy J-S, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Constant-Murley score. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2010;19(1):157-64.
  4. Ban I, Troelsen A, Christiansen DH, Svendsen SW, Kristensen MT. Standardised test protocol (Constant Score) for evaluation of functionality in patients with shoulder disorders. Dan Med J. 2013;60(4):A4608.
  5. Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Care & Research: Official Journal of the American College of Rheumatology. 2009;61(5):623-32.
  6. Puga VO, Lopes AD, Costa LO. Assessment of cross-cultural adaptations and measurement properties of self-report outcome measures relevant to shoulder disability in Portuguese: a systematic review. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy. 2012;16:85-93.
  7. Hirschmann MT, Wind B, Amsler F, Gross T. Reliability of shoulder abduction strength measure for the Constant-Murley score. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2010;468(6):1565-71.
  8. Moser ADdL, Knaut LAM, Zotz TG, Scharan KO. Validity and reliability of the Portuguese version of the American shoulder and elbow surgeons standardized shoulder assessment form. Revista Brasileira De Reumatologia. 2012;52(3):352-6.
  9. Vrotsou K, Ávila M, Machón M, Mateo-Abad M, Pardo Y, Garin O, et al. Constant–Murley Score: systematic review and standardized evaluation in different shoulder pathologies. Quality of life research. 2018;27(9):2217-26.
مجله دانشکده پزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد
دوره 65، شماره 6
بهمن و اسفند 1401
صفحه 2354-2370

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار