Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Degree of Shoulder Involvement in Sports (DOSIS) scale is a valid and responsive instrumentation for shoulder assessment in patients after surgery for anterior instability

  • Shoulder
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate validity and responsiveness of the Degree of Shoulder Involvement in Sport (DOSIS) scale.

Methods

A web-based survey was developed to test the construct validity of the DOSIS scale. Fifty-three patients with a median age of 33 years (range 17–59) were included in the study. Convergent validity was evaluated by external correlation (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, r) of the DOSIS with the Brophy–Marx and Tegner activity scales, the Western Ontario shoulder instability index (WOSI), the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Responsiveness was analysed by relative efficiency calculation of the DOSIS versus the Brophy–Marx and Tegner activity scales.

Results

The DOSIS showed strong correlation with the Brophy–Marx and Tegner activity scales, a moderate correlation with the WOSI and SST scores, and a moderate correlation with the physical functioning, role physical and role emotional subscores of the SF-36. The distribution of the DOSIS scores had no serious ceiling or floor effects. The DOSIS demonstrated lesser responsiveness when compared to the Brophy–Marx and Tegner activity scales.

Conclusion

The DOSIS showed an adequate validity and responsiveness. The clinical relevance of this study is that the DOSIS scale can be used for sport-specific shoulder assessment in patients after surgery for anterior instability.

Level of evidence

III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figs. 1 and 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Apolone G, Mosconi P (1998) The Italian health survey: translation, validation and norming. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1025–1036

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Webster KE (2013) A systematic review of the psychological factors associated with returning to sport following injury. Br J Sports Med 47:1120–1126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barr S, Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Chalmers A, Ford PM, Kean WF, Kraag GR, Gerecz-Simon E, Campbell J (1994) A comparative study of signal versus aggregate methods of outcome measurement based on the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol 21:2106–2112

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blonna D, Bellato E, Bonasia DE, Canata GL, Rossi R, Marmotti A, Castoldi F (2015) Design and testing of the Degree of Shoulder Involvement in Sports (DOSIS) scale. Am J Sports Med 43(10):2423–2430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brophy RH, Beauvais RL, Jones EC, Cordasco FA, Marx RG (2005) Measurement of shoulder activity level. Clin Orthop Relat Res 439:101–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(6):559–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(4):593–600

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Froberg DG, Kane RL (1989) Methodology for measuring healthstate preferences—II: scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 42:459–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Godfrey J, Hamman R, Lowenstein S, Briggs K, Kocher M (2007) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simple shoulder test: psychometric properties by age and injury type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16(3):260–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53:459–468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(6):764–772

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Marchese C, Cristalli G, Pichi B, Manciocco V, Mercante G, Pellini R, Marchesi P, Sperduti I, Ruscito P, Spriano G (2012) Italian cross-cultural adaptation and validation of three different scales for the evaluation of shoulder pain and dysfunction after neck dissection: University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder Scale, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 32(1):12–17

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Rippstein PF (2010) Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:815–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Owens BD, DeBerardino TM, Nelson BJ, Thurman J, Cameron KL, Taylor DC, Uhorchak JM, Arciero RA (2009) Long-term follow-up of acute arthroscopic Bankart repair for initial anterior shoulder dislocations in young athletes. Am J Sports Med 37(4):669–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Owens BD, Cameron KL, Peck KY, DeBerardino TM, Nelson BJ, Taylor DC, Tenuta J, Svoboda SJ (2015) Arthroscopic versus open stabilization for anterior shoulder subluxations. Orthop J Sports Med 3(1):2325967115571084

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Plath JE, Feucht MJ, Saier T, Minzlaff P, Seppel G, Braun S, Imhoff AB (2015) Sporting activity after arthroscopic bankart repair for chronic glenohumeral instability. Arthroscopy 31(10):1996–2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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 60:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Warth RJ, Briggs KK, Dornan GJ, Horan MP, Millett PJ (2013) Patient expectations before arthroscopic shoulder surgery: correlation with patients’ reasons for seeking treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(12):1676–1681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Trina Lat, Physiotec, Australia, for English editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, Oderzo Hospital, Oderzo, Treviso, Italy

    Alberto Vascellari & Nicolò Coletti

  2. Kinè Physiotherapic Center, San Vendemiano, Treviso, Italy

    Carlo Ramponi & Davide Venturin

  3. Department of Occupational Therapy, Italian MS Society Rehabilitation Centre, Padua, Italy

    Giulia Ben

  4. Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, Mauriziano-Umberto I Hospital, University of Turin Medical School, Turin, Italy

    Davide Blonna

Authors
  1. Alberto Vascellari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Ramponi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Davide Venturin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giulia Ben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Davide Blonna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicolò Coletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

SIGASCOT Sport Committee

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Vascellari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to the topic of this article.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Ethical approval

According to Italian law, no ethical approval was mandatory for this study.

Informed consent

All patients gave their informed consent upon receiving complete information on the study.

Appendices

Appendix 1: The Degree of Shoulder Involvement in Sports (DOSIS) scale [4]

The DOSIS scale is calculated for the most important or predominant sport. The information regarding dominant and nondominant arm was used to classify the sport according to “Appendix 2”.

1. What sports did you play before the onset of your shoulder problem? List the sports below and indicate which was the most important/predominant for you

List of sports

Most important/predominant

1)

Yes

No

2)

Yes

No

3)

Yes

No

…

Yes

No

2. How frequently did you participate in sports?a

 Occasionally

 ≥2 times a week, most of the weeks of the year

3. What level of sport did you play?

 Recreational

 Low level of competition (regional, local)

 High level of competition (national or international or professional)

4. Which was your dominant arm during your sports activities?

  1. a For seasonal sports, the frequency during the season is considered

Appendix 2: Classification of sports according to demand on the upper extremity [4]

No or minimal demand

Moderate demand

High demand

Jogging

Soccer

Swimming

Road cycling

Bowling, dominant

Rugby

Horseback riding

Nordic skiing

American football

Bowling, nondominant

Rowing

Martial arts

Mountain biking

Motocross

Gymnastics

Alpine skiing

Golfing

Volleyball, dominant

Nordic walking

Bodybuilding

Tennis/squash, dominant

Hiking

Track and field (running and jumping)

Water polo

 

Track and field (throwing), nondominant

Baseball, dominant

 

Kayaking

Baseball (pitcher)

 

Dancing

Soccer (goal keeper)

 

Basketball

Rock climbing

 

Volleyball, nondominant

Track and field (throwing), dominant

 

Tennis/squash, nondominant

 
 

Baseball, nondominant

 
  1. The list of sports included in each group is an open list. Other sports not listed here can be added by using the instructions in the original validation study

Appendix 3: Allocation table [4]

Using this table, the researcher scores the patient according to type of sport, frequency in which the sport is played, and level of the sport. For example, an occasional tennis player (high-demand sport), with involvement of the dominant arm, is assigned a DOSIS scale of 6 points (in grey)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vascellari, A., Ramponi, C., Venturin, D. et al. The Degree of Shoulder Involvement in Sports (DOSIS) scale is a valid and responsive instrumentation for shoulder assessment in patients after surgery for anterior instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26, 195–202 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4642-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4642-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation