Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 38, Issue 11, pp 3289–3295 | Cite as

Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Turkish version of the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation

  • Zeynep Hazar KanikEmail author
  • Omer Osman Pala
  • Gul Oznur Karabicak
  • Seyit Citaker
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

The Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) is a joint-specific, self-administered outcome measure used to determine the level of pain and disability in patients with various elbow pathologies. The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the PREE into Turkish (PREE-T) and to test its reliability and validity.

Methods

Fifty-nine patients with elbow disorders were included in the present study. The original version of the PREE was translated and culturally adapted into Turkish by following standard procedure. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined using intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. Construct validity of PREE-T was determined with Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires by using Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis. Floor and ceiling effects were also analyzed.

Results

A high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.959) and an excellent test-retest reliability (the intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.970) indicated that the PREE-T was reliable. Neither floor nor ceiling effects were observed in sub-parameters (0–1.7%) and the total score (0%) of PREE-T. Correlation coefficients between the PREE-T total score and DASH disability/symptom and work sub-parameters were 0.636 and 0.461, respectively. PREE-T pain and function sub-parameters correlated with related sub-parameters of the SF-36 bodily pain (r = − 0.721) and physical functioning (r = − 0.263).

Conclusion

The Turkish version of the PREE is a valid and reliable outcome measure for assessing patients with elbow disorders. It is recommended to be used in research and clinical settings.

Key Points

The Turkish version of the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation was successfully translated into Turkish and validated in a population with various elbow pathologies according to established guidelines

The Turkish version of the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation has high internal consistency and test-retest values

The Turkish version of the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation is valid and reliable

Keywords

Elbow Outcome measure Reliability Validity 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

None.

Human and animal rights statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10067_2019_4665_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, Scott JA, Rock EP, Dawisha S, O’Neill R, Kennedy DL (2007) Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 10(Suppl 2):125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Longo UG, Franceschi F, Loppini M, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2008) Rating systems for evaluation of the elbow. Br Med Bull 87(1):131–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vincent JI, MacDermid JC, King GJ, Grewal R (2013) Validity and sensitivity to change of patient-reported pain and disability measures for elbow pathologies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 43(4):263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    MacDermid JC (2001) Outcome evaluation in patients with elbow pathology: issues in instrument development and evaluation. J Hand Ther 14(2):105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vincent JI, MacDermid JC, King GJ, Grewal R (2015) Linking of the Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons-Elbow questionnaire (pASES-e) to the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) and Hand Core Sets. J Hand Ther 28(1):61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    John M, Angst F, Pap G, Junge A, Mannion AF (2007) Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) for German-speaking patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 25(2):195–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beauchemin G, MacDermid JC, Bourduas K, Poirier MF, Gaudelli C, Rouleau DM (2015) Translation and validation of the PREE (Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation) to a French version. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101(4):405–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanyu T, Watanabe M, Masatomi T, Nishida K, Nakagawa T, Nishiura Y, Ohi H (2013) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation. J Orthop Sci 18(5):712–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farazdaghi MR, Mansoori A, Vosoughi O, Kordi Yoosefinejad A (2017) Evaluation of the reliability and validity of the Persian version of Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation questionnaire. Rheumatol Int 37(5):743–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(24):3186–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Düger T, Yakut E, Öksüz Ç, Yörükan S, Bilgütay BS, Ayhan Ç, Leblebicioğlu G, Kayıhan H, Kırdı N, Yakut Y, Güler Ç (2006) Kol, omuz ve el sorunları (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand-DASH) anketi Türkçe uyarlamasının güvenirliği ve geçerliği. Türk Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi 17(3):99–107Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pinar R (2005) Reliability and construct validity of the SF-36 in Turkish cancer patients. Qual Life Res 14(1):259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fleiss JL (1986) Reliability of measurement. In: Fleiss JL (ed) The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feise RJ, Michael Menke J (2001) Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(1):78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hazar Kanik Z, Gunaydin G, Pala OO, Sozlu U, Alkan ZB, Citaker S, Basar S, Kanatli U (2018) Translation, cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version of the Penn Shoulder Score. Disabil Rehabil 40(10):1214–1219​Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zeynep Hazar Kanik
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Omer Osman Pala
    • 3
  • Gul Oznur Karabicak
    • 4
  • Seyit Citaker
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health SciencesGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of NeurobiologyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health SciencesSivas Cumhuriyet UniversitySivasTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health SciencesAdnan Menderes UniversityAydinTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health SciencesGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations