Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 12, pp 4020–4026 | Cite as

Validation of the Brazilian Version of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating Scale for Lower Extremity Bone Sarcoma

  • Daniel Cesar Seguel Rebolledo
  • João Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci
  • Ricardo Pietrobon
  • Olavo Pires de Camargo
  • Andre Mathias Baptista
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) rating scale is an English-language instrument used worldwide to assess functional evaluation of patients with musculoskeletal cancer. Despite its use in several studies in English-speaking countries, its validity for assessing patients in other languages is unknown. The translation and validation of widely used scales can facilitate the comparison across international patient samples.

Objectives/purposes

The objectives of this study were (1) to translate and culturally adapt the MSTS rating scale for functional evaluation in patients with lower extremity bone sarcomas to Brazilian Portuguese; (2) analyze its factor structure; and (3) test the reliability and (4) validity of this instrument.

Method

The MSTS rating scale for lower limbs was translated from English into Brazilian Portuguese. Translations were synthesized, translated back into English, and reviewed by a multidisciplinary committee for further implementation. The questionnaire was administered to 67 patients treated for malignant lower extremity bone tumors who were submitted to limb salvage surgery or amputation. They also completed a Brazilian version of the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). Psychometric properties were analyzed including factor structure analysis, internal consistency, interobserver reliability, test-retest reliability, and construct validity (by comparing the adapted MSTS with TESS and discriminant validity).

Results

The MSTS rating scale for lower limbs was translated and culturally adapted to Brazilian Portuguese. The MSTS-BR proved to be adequate with only one latent dimension. The scale was also found to be reliable in a population that speaks Brazilian Portuguese showing good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84) and reliability (test-retest reliability and interobserver agreement of 0.92 and 0.98, respectively). Validity of the Brazilian MSTS rating scale was proved by moderate with TESS and good discriminant validity.

Conclusions

The Brazilian version of the MSTS rating scale was translated and validated. It is a reliable tool to assess functional outcome in patients with lower extremity bone sarcomas. It can be used for functional evaluation of Brazilian patients and crosscultural comparisons.

References

  1. 1.
    Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, Sprangers MA, te Velde A, Verrips E. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1055–1068.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander M, Berger W, Buchholz P, Walt J, Burk C, Lee J, Arbuckle R, Abetz L. The reliability, validity, and preliminary responsiveness of the Eye Allergy Patient Impact Questionnaire (EAPIQ). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Recommendations for the Cross-cultural Adaptation of Health Status Measures. Rosemont, IL, USA: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Institute for Work and Health; 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186–3191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis AM, Wright JG, Williams JI, Bombardier C, Griffin A, Bell RS. Development of a measure of physical function for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:508–516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawson-Sanders B, Trapp RG. Basic and Clinical Biostatistics. Norwalk, CT, USA: Appleton & Lange, Inc; 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:241–246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods. 1999;4:272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York, NY, USA: Wiley; 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ginsberg JP, Rai SN, Carlson CA, Meadows AT, Hinds PS, Spearing EM, Zhang L, Callaway L, Neel MD, Rao BN, Marchese VG. A comparative analysis of functional outcomes in adolescents and young adults with lower-extremity bone sarcoma. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2007;49:964–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griesser MJ, Gillette B, Crist M, Pan X, Muscarella P, Scharschmidt T, Mayerson J. Internal and external hemipelvectomy or flail hip in patients with sarcomas: quality-of-life and functional outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91:24–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kline P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. London, UK: Routledge; 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee SH, Kim DJ, Oh JH, Han HS, Yoo KH, Kim HS. Validation of a functional evaluation system in patients with musculoskeletal tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;411:217–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JFR, Sherbourne CD. 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. 1994;32:40–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. 5th ed. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Muthén & Muthén; 2007.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ottaviani G, Robert RS, Huh WW, Jaffe N. Functional, psychosocial and professional outcomes in long-term survivors of lower-extremity osteosarcomas: Amputation Versus Limb Salvage. Cancer Treat Res. 2009;152:421–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saraiva D, de Camargo B, Davis AM. Cultural adaptation, translation and validation of a functional outcome questionnaire (TESS) to Portuguese with application to patients with lower extremity osteosarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008;50:1039–1042.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simon MA, Aschliman MA, Thomas N, Mankin HJ. Limb-salvage treatment versus amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1331–1337.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    SPSS Inc. SPSS Base 12.0 for Windows User’s Guide. Chicago, IL, USA: SPSS Inc; 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Talbot M, Turcotte RE, Isler M, Normandin D, Iannuzzi D, Downer P. Function and health status in surgically treated bone metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;438:215–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor MK, Pietrobon R, Menezes A, Olson SA, Pan D, Bathia N, DeVellis RF, Kume P, Higgins LD. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: the SMFA-BR. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:788–794.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wada T, Kawai A, Ihara K, Sasaki M, Sonoda T, Imaeda T, Yamashita T. Construct validity of the Enneking score for measuring function in patients with malignant or aggressive benign tumours of the upper limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:659–663.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Cesar Seguel Rebolledo
    • 1
  • João Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ricardo Pietrobon
    • 4
  • Olavo Pires de Camargo
    • 1
  • Andre Mathias Baptista
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Research on Research GroupDuke University Health SystemDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Medicine DepartmentFaculdade IngaMaringáBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Research on Research GroupDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations