Advertisement

Rheumatology International

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 217–223 | Cite as

Relative validity of the modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (M-ASES) questionnaire using item response theory

  • Chad CookEmail author
  • Eric Hegedus
  • Adam Goode
  • Curtis Mina
  • Ricardo Pietrobon
  • Lawrence D. Higgins
Original Article

Abstract

The modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon’s (M-ASES) questionnaire is purported to be a non-region specific functional measure of the entire upper extremity. The purpose of this study was to determine the factor structure of the M-ASES and to determine item-fit of the M-ASES using item response theory (IRT). Analyses included univariate baseline demographics, factor analysis, convergent/construct validation with the SF-12, and graded response IRT of the M-ASES. 964 patients of an orthopedic practice with a variety of upper extremity dysfunctions participated in this trial. The M-ASES demonstrated two dimensions (wrist/hand and shoulder dysfunction) and exhibited excellent discrimination and threshold specification. The instrument correlated well with the mental and physical dimensions of the SF-12. The M-ASES should be considered an excellent tool for measure of whole upper extremity dysfunction.

Keywords

Item response theory M-ASES American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon’s questionnaire 

References

  1. 1.
    Beaton D, Richards RR (1998) Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:565–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN (2005) Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1038–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhakta B, Tennant A, Horton M, Lawton G, Andrich D (2005) Using item response theory to explore the psychometric properties of extended matching questions examination in undergraduate medical education. BMC Med Educ 5:9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, de Vet HC (2004) Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis 63:335–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang CH, Reeve BB (2005) Item response theory and its applications to patient-reported outcomes measurement. Eval Health Prof 28:264–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook KF, Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Olson SL (2001) The measurement level and trait-specific reliability of 4 scales of shoulder functioning: an empiric investigation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82:1558–1565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dowrick AS, Gabbe BJ, Williamson OD, Cameron PA (2005) Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremity following trauma: a review. Injury 36:468–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Embretson S, Reise S (2000) Item response theory for psychologists. Hillsdale, ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP (2000) Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 38:II28–II42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE (1983) An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing 12:166–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kocher MS, Horan MP, Briggs KK, Richardson TR, O’Holleran J, Hawkins RJ (2005) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2006–2011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang MH (2000) Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 38:II84–II90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Masters G (1982) A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 47:149–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McClure P, Michener L (2003) Measures of adult shoulder function. Arthritis Rheum 49:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McHorney C, Ware JJ, Lu J, Sherbourne C (1994) The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 32:40–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE (1993) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31:247–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mellenbergh G (1994) Generalized linear item response theory. Psychol Bull 15:300–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ (2002) American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:587–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patrick DL, Chiang YP (2000) Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: conceptual and methodological challenges. Med Care 38:II14–II25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pietrobon R, Coeytaux RR, Carey TS, Richardson WJ, DeVellis RF (2002) Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction: a systematic review. Spine 27:515–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Razmjou H, Bean A, van Osnabrugge V, MacDermid JC, Holtby R (2006) Cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two rotator cuff disease-specific outcome measures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richards R, An K, Bigliani L et al (1994) A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sallay PI, Reed L (2003) The measurement of normative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12:622–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steinberg L, Thissen D (1995) Item response theory in personality research. In: Fisk S (ed) Personality research, methods, and theory. Hillsdale, ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Linden W, Hambleton R (1997) Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chad Cook
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Eric Hegedus
    • 2
  • Adam Goode
    • 2
  • Curtis Mina
    • 3
  • Ricardo Pietrobon
    • 1
  • Lawrence D. Higgins
    • 4
  1. 1.Centers of Excellence in Surgical OutcomesDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Community and Family MedicineDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Division of Orthopedic SurgeryHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations