Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome questionnaires for patients with musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder

  • Ertan ŞahinoğluEmail author
  • Gülbin Ergin
  • Bayram Ünver



To evaluate the psychometric properties of self-administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires which were used in non-surgical homogeneous populations with musculoskeletal shoulder disorders.


The included studies were identified using eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of each article was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. The psychometric properties of original versions and translated versions of PROs were also assessed.


Twenty articles were included. Two musculoskeletal shoulder disorders were identified that met the selection criteria: rotator cuff disease and glenohumeral instability. A total of 11 PROs were identified. In general, the methodological quality of the included studies is fair or poor. The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) are the most frequently evaluated PROs for patients with rotator cuff disease, and their psychometric properties seem to vary according to what language that they are in. For glenohumeral instability, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and the Oxford Instability Shoulder Score (OISS) are the most frequently evaluated PROs, and their psychometric properties seem to be adequate.


Using for rotator cuff disease is advised, for Norwegian users, the SPADI, WORC, Oxford Shoulder Score, and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand. Dutch and Persian users could use the WORC. For Greek speakers, the SPADI is recommended. Turkish users could use the rotator cuff quality-of-life measure. For glenohumeral instability, Dutch and Norwegian speakers could use the WOSI and the OISS. Italian, Japanese, and Turkish users could use the WOSI. For English users, the OISS and the Shoulder Rating Questionnaire are recommended.

Level of evidence



Psychometric Shoulder Patient-reported outcome measures Surveys and questionnaires Shoulder pain 



The authors acknowledge Xuanyan Xu who is the marketing manager for Embase at Elsevier, for her help with free trial access to Embase database.

Author contributions

ES and BU contributed to the study design. ES, GE, and BU contributed to the development of the search strategy, and performed of the searching. ES and GE selected studies, pooled the data, and performed the data synthesis. All authors contributed to the data interpretation. ES was the principal writer of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the writing of the final version.


None declared.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by Noninvasive Research Ethics Board of Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine (protocol no: 3180-GOA, decision number: 2017/05-11) and was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017058527), in March 2017.

Data sharing

All data are available in the submitted manuscript or as appendix.

Supplementary material

167_2019_5369_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 KB)
167_2019_5369_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 18 KB)


  1. 1.
    Luime JJ, Koes BW, Hendriksen IJM, Burdorf A, Verhagen AP, Miedema HS, Verhaar JAN (2004) Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol 33:73–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennell K, Wee E, Coburn S, Green S, Harris A, Staples M, Forbes A, Buchbinder R (2010) Efficacy of standardised manual therapy and home exercise programme for chronic rotator cuff disease: randomised placebo controlled trial. Br Med J 340:c2756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black N (2013) Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 346:f167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haywood KL (2006) Patient-reported outcome I: measuring what matters in musculoskeletal care. Musculoskelet Care 4:187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2012) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 21:651–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang H, Grant JA, Miller BS, Mirza FM, Gagnier JJ (2015) A systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with rotator cuff disease. Am J Sports Med 43:2572–2582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thoomes-de Graaf M, Scholten-Peeters GGM, Schellingerhout JM, Bourne AM, Buchbinder R, Koehorst M, Terwee CB, Verhagen AP (2016) Evaluation of measurement properties of self-administered PROMs aimed at patients with non-specific shoulder pain and”activity limitations”: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 25:2141–2160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karanicolas PJ, Bhandari M, Kreder H, Moroni A, Richardson M, Walter SD, Norman GR, Guyatt GH (2009) Evaluating agreement: conducting a reliability study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91(Suppl 3):99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP (2010) Minimal clinically important differences in ases and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92(2):296–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3186–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:102–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J (2017) The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol 82:128–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HCW (2010) Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63(5):524–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Terwee CB, de Vet H, Prinsen C, Mokkink LB (2011) Protocol for systematic reviews of measurement properties. Accessed 21 May 2017
  16. 16.
    Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, De Vet HCW (2009) Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 18:1115–1123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schellingerhout JM, Heymans MW, Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, Koes BW, Terwee CB (2011) Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:87CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder MW, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Back Review Group (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1929–1941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1290–1299Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirkley S, Alvarez CAG (2003) The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for rotator cuff disease: the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Clin J Sport Med 13:84–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hollinshead RM, Mohtadi NGH, Vande Guchte RA, Wadey VMR (2000) Two 6-year follow-up studies of large and massive rotator cuff tears: comparison of outcome measures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 9:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y (1991) Development of a Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Arthritis Care Res 4(4):143–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Br 78(4):593–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lippitt SB, Harryman DT, Matsen FA (1993) A practical tool for evaluating function: the simple shoulder test. In: Matsen FA III, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ (eds) The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stability. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery, Rosemont, pp 501–518Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head). Am J Ind Med 29:602–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Der Heijden GJMG, Leffers P, Bouter LM (2000) Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. J Clin Epidemiol 53:29–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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 26:764–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1999) The assessment of shoulder instability. The development and validation of a questionnaire. J Bone Jt Surg 81(3):420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    L’Insalata JC, Warren RF, Cohen SB, Altchek DW, Peterson MG (1997) A self-administered questionnaire for assessment of symptoms and function of the shoulder. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79:738–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Altman D (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cloke DJ, Lynn SE, Watson H, Steen IN, Purdy S, Williams JR (2005) A comparison of functional, patient-based scores in subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14:380–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ekeberg OM, Bautz-Holter E, Tveitå EK, Keller A, Juel NG, Brox JI (2008) Agreement, reliability and validity in 3 shoulder questionnaires in patients with rotator cuff disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:68CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Haldorsen B, Svege I, Roe Y, Bergland A (2014) Reliability and validity of the Norwegian version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:78CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dogu B, Sahin F, Ozmaden A, Yilmaz F, Kuran B (2013) Which questionnaire is more effective for follow-up diagnosed subacromial impingement syndrome? A comparison of the responsiveness of SDQ, SPADI and WORC index. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 26:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    El O, Bircan C, Gulbahar S, Demiral Y, Sahin E, Baydar M, Kizil R, Griffin S, Akalin E (2006) The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the western Ontario rotator cuff index. Rheumatol Int 26:1101–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gunes T, Erkorkmaz U, Kurnaz R, Bilgic E, Asci M (2014) Rotator cuff-quality of life scale: adaptation to Turkish. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:603–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vrouva S, Batistaki C, Koutsioumpa E, Kostopoulos D, Stamoulis E, Kostopanagiotou G (2016) The Greek version of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI): translation, cultural adaptation, and validation in patients with rotator cuff tear. J Orthop Traumatol 17:315–326CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wessel RN, Wolterbeek N, Fermont AJM, van Mameren H, Sonneveld H, Griffin S, de Bie R (2013) The conceptually equivalent Dutch version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)©. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:362CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mehta SP, Tiruttani R, Kaur MN, MacDermid J, Karim R (2015) Psychometric properties of the hindi version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand: a pilot study. Rehabil Res Pract 2015:482378Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mousavi SJ, Hadian MR, Abedi M, Montazeri A (2009) Translation and validation study of the Persian version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Clin Rheumatol 28:293–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Alvarez-Nemegyei J, Puerto-Ceballos I, Guzman-Hau W, Bassol-Perea A, Nuno-Gutierrez BL (2005) Development of a Spanish-language version of the shoulder disability questionnaire. J Clin Rheumatol 11:185–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Papalia R, Osti L, Leonardi F, Denaro V, Maffulli N (2010) RC-QOL score for rotator cuff pathology: adaptation to Italian. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(10):1417–1424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Moser JS, Barker KL, Doll HA, Carr AJ (2008) Comparison of two patient-based outcome measures for shoulder instability after nonoperative treatment. J Shoulder Elb Surg 17(6):886–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Skare Ø, Liavaag S, Reikerås O, Mowinckel P, Brox JI (2013) Evaluation of Oxford instability shoulder score, Western Ontario shoulder instability index and Euroqol in patients with SLAP (superior labral anterior posterior) lesions or recurrent anterior dislocations of the shoulder. BMC Res Notes 6:273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    van der Linde JA, van Kampen DA, van Beers LWAH, van Deurzen DFP, Terwee CB, Willems WJ (2015) The Oxford Shoulder Instability Score; validation in Dutch and first-time assessment of its smallest detectable change. J Orthop Surg Res 10:146CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    van der Linde JA, Willems WJ, van Kampen DA, van Beers LWAH, van Deurzen DFP, Terwee CB (2014) Measurement properties of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index in Dutch patients with shoulder instability. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:211CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cacchio A, Paoloni M, Griffin SH, Rosa F, Properzi G, Padua L, Padua R, Carnelli F, Calvisi V, Santilli V (2012) Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of an Italian version of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 42:559–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hatta T, Shinozaki N, Omi R, Sano H, Yamamoto N, Ando A, Sugaya H, Aizawa T, Kuriyama S, Itoi E (2011) Reliability and validity of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) in the Japanese population. J Orthop Sci 16:732–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Basar S, Gunaydin G, Hazar Kanik Z, Sozlu U, Alkan ZB, Pala OO, Citaker S, Kanatli U (2017) Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version. Rheumatol Int 37:1559–1565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2012) The COSMIN checklist manual. Accessed 21 May 2017
  54. 54.
    Longo UG, Saris D, Poolman RW, Berton A, Denaro V (2012) Instruments to assess patients with rotator cuff pathology: a systematic review of measurement properties. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(10):1961–1970CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    St-Pierre C, Desmeules F, Dionne CE, Frémont P, MacDermid JC, Roy J-S (2015) Psychometric properties of self-reported questionnaires for the evaluation of symptoms and functional limitations in individuals with rotator cuff disorders: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 8288:1–20Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rouleau DM, Faber K, MacDermid JC (2010) Systematic review of patient-administered shoulder functional scores on instability. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19:1121–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Valderas JM, Ferrer M, Mendívil J, Garin O, Rajmil L, Herdman M, Alonso J (2008) Development of EMPRO: a tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value Health 11(4):700–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Francis DO, McPheeters ML, Noud M, Penson DF, Feurer ID (2016) Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures. Syst Rev 5(1):129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, Terwee CB (2017) COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 27:1171–1179CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Harris JD, Quatman CE, Manring MM, Siston RA, Flanigan DC (2014) How to write a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 42:2761–2768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dr. İsmail Atabek Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation CenterIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Health Science FacultyEuropean University of LefkeLefkeNorth Cyprus
  3. 3.School of Physical Therapy and RehabilitationDokuz Eylul UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations