Quality of Life Research

, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp 508–516 | Cite as

Development of a measure of physical function for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma

  • A. M. Davis
  • J. G. Wright
  • J. I. Williams
  • C. Bombardier
  • A. Griffin
  • R. S. Bell
Research Papers


Patients undergoing limb salvage surgery for bone and soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities experience significant physical disability as a result of life-preserving treatment. The existing health status measures do not adequately evaluate physical function from the patient's perspective. This paper presents the developmental studies item selection, of a new measure, The Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). Patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma (76 upper and 83 lower extremity) were randomly selected and mailed the TESS. Patients rated the severity and importance of physical disabilities; the response options included a ‘not applicable’; category and open-ended questions that allowed patients to suggest additional items for inclusion in the questionnaire. Therefore, patient perceptions were used to determine item content. Difficulty and importance frequencies were calculated and items rated “totally unimportant’ or ‘not applicable’ by 30% of the sample were eliminated. Extra items identified 30% of the time were added to the questionnaire. Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest reliability and validity were evaluated on subsequent patient samples. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for test-retest reliability and correlations with The Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Rating Scale (MSTS) were calculated for construct validity. Standardized effect sizes were calculated as a measure of responsiveness. Fifty upper extremity and sixty-six lower extremity patients responded to the mailed questionnaire. No items were eliminated based on importance or not applicable ratings. Sporting activities were identified as additional items in both the upper and lower extremity questionnaire. High internal consistency was demonstrated: 0.94 for the lower and 0.92 for the upper extremity questionnaires respectively. Test-retest reliability was evaluated at multiple time-points and the intraclass correlation coefficient was greater than 0.87 in all instances. Construct validity was shown by a moderate correlation with the MSTS. The effect sizes were large demonstrating responsiveness. The use of patients' perceptions in determining the content of the TESS has resulted in a reliable and valid measure that is able to detect change over time.


Soft Tissue Sarcoma Limb Salvage Standardize Effect Size Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Toronto Extremity Salvage Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Simon MA. Current concepts review, limb salvage for osteosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg 1989; 70A: 307–310.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergner, M. Quality of life, health status, and clinical research. Med Care 27(3): S148–S156.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liang MH. The historical and conceptual framework for functional assessment in rheumatic disease. J Rheum 1987; 14(Suppl): 2–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patrick DL, Bergner M. Measurement of health status in the 1990's. Ann Rev Pub Health 1990; 11: 165–183.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ware JE. Conceptualizing and Measuring Generic Health Outcomes. Cancer 1991; Suppl 1: 774–779.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patrick DL, Erikson P. Health Status and Health Policy Allocating Resources to Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bell RS, O'Sullivan B, Langer FL. Complications and functional results after limb salvage surgery and radiology for difficult mesenchymal neoplasms. Can J Surg 1989; 32: 69–73.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bell RS, O'Sullivan B, Davis AM, et al. Functional outcome in soft tissue sarcoma treated by surgery and irradiation. J Surg Oncol 1991; 48: 224–231.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Capanna R, Ruggieri P, Biagini R, et al. The effect of quadriceps excision on functional results after distal femoral resection and prosthetic replacement of bone tumors. Clin Ortho 1991; 267: 186–196.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis AM, Bell RS, Allan DG, et al. Functional outcome of fresh osteochondral allografts following tumour resection. Transplantation Implantation 1991; 8: 9–12.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gebhardt MC, Roth YF, Mankin HJ. Osteoarticular allografts for reconstruction in the proximal part of the humerus after excision of a musculoskeletal tumor. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72(3): 334–345.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris IE, Leff AR, Gitelis S, et al. Function after amputation, arthrodesis, or arthroplasty for tumors about the knee. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72(10): 1477–1485.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Pollard WE, et al. The sickness impact profile: validation of a health status measure medical care. J Med Care 1976; 14: 57–67.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WN, et al. The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. Brit Med J 1992; 305(6846): 160–164.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP, Measuring health status: A new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Col Gen Pract 1985; 35: 185–188.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McHorney CA, Ware JEJr, Raczek AE. The MOS SF-36 short-form health survey (SF-36): II psychometric and clinical test of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31(3): 247–263.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware JEJr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) I Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473–483.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ware JEJr. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: Nimrod Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. JNCI 1993; 85(5): 365–376.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ganz PA, Schag CAC, Lee JJ, et al. The CARES: A generic measure of health-related quality of life for patients with cancer. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 19–29.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11(3): 570–579.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Enneking WF. Modification of the system for functional evaluation in the surgical management of musculoskeletal tumours. In: Enneking WF, ed. Limb Salvage in Musculoskeletal Oncology. New York, NY: Churchill Livingston, 1987: 626–639.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, et al. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. CORR 1993; 286: 241–246.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meenan RF. The AIMS approach to health status measurement: conceptual background and measurement properties. J Rheum 1982; 9(5): 785–788.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spiegel JS, Leake B, Spiegel TM, et al. What are we measuring? An examination of self-reported functional status measures. Arth Rheum 1988; 31(6): 721–728.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bombardier C, Tugwell PA. Methodological framework to develop and select indices for clinical trials: statistical and judgmental approaches. J Rheum 1982; 9(5): 753–757.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    MacKenzie CR, Charleson ME, DiGioia D, et al. Patientspecific measure of change in maximal function. Arch Int Med 1986; 146: 1325–1329.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tugwell PX, Bombardier C. A methodological framwork for developing and selecting endpoints in clinical trials. J Rheum 1982; 9(5): 758–762.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Feinstein AR, Clinimetrics, New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wright JG, Feinstein AR. A comparative contrast of clinimetric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(11): 1201–1218.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guyatt G, Bombardier C, Tugwell PX. Measuring diseasespecific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ 1986; 134: 889–895.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16(3): 297–334.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory (2nd edition). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fleiss JL. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1986.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JL, Meenan RF, Efect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178-S189.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Revised Edition). New York, NY: Academic Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wright JG, Rudicel S, Feinstein AR. Asking patients what they want: a method for evaluating the complaints of individual patients receiving total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg 1994; 76: 229–234.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Science Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Davis
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. G. Wright
    • 3
    • 4
  • J. I. Williams
    • 5
  • C. Bombardier
    • 6
  • A. Griffin
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. S. Bell
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University Musculoskeletal Oncology UnitUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Mount Sinai HospitalTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Clinical Epidemiology UnitHospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Institute for Clinical and Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Department of MedicineUniversity of Toronto, Wellesley Hospital, Institute for Work and HealthTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations