Der Unfallchirurg

, Volume 107, Issue 5, pp 397–402 | Cite as

Entwicklung eines Fragebogens basierend auf dem Constant-Murely-Score zur Selbstevaluation der Schulterfunktion durch den Patienten

  • D. Boehm
  • N. Wollmerstedt
  • M. Doesch
  • M. Handwerker
  • E. Mehling
  • F. Gohlke
Originalien

Zusammenfassung

Es soll ein Fragebogen entwickelt werden, mit welchem der Constant-Score (CS) zur Erfassung der Schulterfunktion ohne erneute Untersuchung des Patienten erhoben werden kann.

Zur Bestimmung der Retestreliabilität wurde innerhalb von 1 Woche von 47 zur Schulteroperation anstehenden Patienten der Bogen 2-mal selbstständig ausgefüllt. Zur Validierung erfolgte eine Erhebung des CS durch den Arzt.

Die mittlere Trennschärfe des modifizierten CS-Patientenbogens zur stationären Aufnahme lag bei r=0,47. Die mittlere Itemschwierigkeit betrug 0,40, die Retestreliabilität 0,675 (p=0,000), die Interne Konsistenz des Patientenbogens 0,80 und die der Arztuntersuchung 0,85. Die Validierung anhand der Konstrukt-, Diskriminations- und Kontentvalidität war erfolgreich, der CS-Bogen korrelierte hochsignifikant mit dem vom Arzt erhobenen Score.

Diese statistischen Analysen zeigen, dass der CS-Bogen ein reliables und valides Instrument zur Erhebung des CS darstellt und somit für Verlaufsstudien eingesetzt werden kann.

Schlüsselwörter

Constant-Score-Fragebogen Schulterfunktion Reliabilität 

Development of a questionnaire based on the Constant-Murley-Score for patient self-evaluation of shoulder function

Abstract

The aim was to develop a German questionnaire for self-assessment of shoulder function equivalent to the Constant-Score (CS).

To evaluate the retest reliability, the CS questionnaire was completed twice within 1 week by 47 patients prior to shoulder surgery. For validation the CS was assessed by the physician after the second self-test.

The medium selectivity of the CS questionnaire at hospital admission was 0.47, the medium item difficulty 0.40, the test-retest reliability 0.675 (p=0.000), the internal consistency of the questionnaire 0.80, and of the physician’s CS evaluation 0.85. Construct, content, and discriminative validity of the questionnaire could be demonstrated. A high correlation of the patient-based questionnaire with the physician-assessed CS was found (p=0.82).

The statistical analyses demonstrated that the CS questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to evaluate the CS and can therefore be used for follow-up studies.

Keywords

Constant-Score questionnaire Shoulder function Reliability 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt:

Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Beaton DE, Richards RR (1996) Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78: 882–890Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehm TD, Mueller T, Rehwald C, Gohlke F, Barthel T, Eulert J (1997) Age and sex related Constant Murely Score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 6: 194Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinker MR, Cuomo JS, Popham GJ, O’Connor DP, Barrack RL (2002) An examination of bias in shoulder scoring instruments among healthy collegiate and recreational athletes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11: 463–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, p 62Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conboy V, Morris R, Kiss J, Carr A (1996) An evaluation of the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78: 229–232Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Constant CR, Murley AHG (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 214: 160–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Constant CR (1991) Schulterfunktionsbeurteilung. Orthopade 20: 289–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellman H, Hanker G, Bayer M (1986) Repair of the rotator cuff. End-result study of factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68: 1136–1144Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerber C (1996) Use of Constant Score for assessing shoulder instability. Instructional course, 9th Congress of the SECEC/ESSES, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Germann G, Wind G, Harth A (1999) The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm- Shoulder-Hand) Questionnaire a new instrument for evaluating upper extremity treatment outcome. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 31: 149–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gschwendt (1996) 9th Congress of the SECEC/ESSES, Nottingham Book of Abstracts, p 124Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand). The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Indust Med 29: 602–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kay SP, Amstutz HC (1986) Shoulder hemiarthroplasty at UCLA. Clin Orthop 228: 42–48Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richards RR, Kai-Nan An, Bilgiani LU et al. (1994) A standarized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3: 347–352Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirkley A, Griffin S, McLintock H, Ng L (1998) The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Am J Sports Med 26: 764–772PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirschenbaum D, Coyle MP, Leddy JP et al. (1993) Shoulder strength with rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop 288: 174–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lippitt SB, Harryman DT II, Matsen, FA III (1993) A practical tool for evaluating function: the simple shoulder test. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, Ill, pp 501–518Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Löhr J, Schuetz U, Hauser C, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR (2000) Introduction of a visual score correlating to the Constant Shoulder Functional Score. 14th Open Congress of the European Society of Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow. Lissabon, 2000, Book of Abstracts, p 124Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKee MD, Yoo DJ (2000) The effect of surgery for rotator cuff disease on general health status. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82: 970–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roach K E, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y (1991) Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthrit Care Res 4: 143–149Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowe CR, Patel D, Southmayd WW (1978) The Bankart procedure. A long-term endresult study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60: 1–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skutek M, Fremerey RW, Zeichen J, Bosch U (2000) Outcome analysis following open rotator cuff repair. Early effectivness validated using four different shoulder assessment scales. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120: 432–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skutek M, Zeichen J, Fremerey RW, Bosch U (2001) Outcomeanalyse nach offener Rekonstruktion von Rotatorenmanschettenrupturen. Unfallchirurg 104: 480–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taylor AJ, Neumann L, Almeida I, Wallace WA (1998) Strength assessement for the constant score: comparison of the isobex, a fixed spring balance and the Nottingham myometer. 7 International Congress of Shoulder Surgery, Sydney, Book of Abstracts, p 271Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walker SW, Couch WH, Boester GA, Sprowl DW (1987) Isokinetic strength of the shoulder after repair of a torn rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69: 1041–1044PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylro DC (1999) Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Am J Sports Med 27: 214–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wolfgang GL (1974) Surgical repair of tears of the rotator cuff of the shoulder J Bone Joint Surg Am 56: 14–25Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wülker N, Kohn D, Grimm C (1991) Bewertung der Schulterfunktion mit unterschiedlichen Scores. Orthop Prax 12: 750–754Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Boehm
    • 1
    • 2
  • N. Wollmerstedt
    • 1
  • M. Doesch
    • 1
  • M. Handwerker
    • 1
  • E. Mehling
    • 1
  • F. Gohlke
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopädische Klinik, König-Ludwig-HausUniversitätWürzburg
  2. 2.Orthopädische Klinik, König-Ludwig-HausUniversitätWürzburg

Personalised recommendations