Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Translation, cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Turkish ASES questionnaire

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

Abstract

Purpose

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) is a standard shoulder assessment form, which is comprised of objective and subjective sections and prepared by shoulder and elbow surgeons. The purpose of this study was to translate the subjective part of the ASES into Turkish and establish its cultural adaptiveness and validity.

Methods

The original version of the ASES was translated into Turkish in accordance with the stages recommended by Guillemin. Sixty-three patients (average age: 48.2 ± 13.4; range: 18–74 years) suffering from different shoulder complaints were included in the study. The ASES was completed twice at 3- to 7-day intervals for test–retest reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to calculate the test–retest reliability, and Cronbach’s alpha was used for internal consistency. Patients were asked to complete the short form 36 (SF-36) and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) for correlation. Validity was evaluated by external correlation of the ASES with the SPADI and SF-S6 questionnaire, which may also be defined as ‘construct validity’. The results were analysed using Pearson’s correlation test.

Results

The test–retest reliability of the ASES pain and function subscales and total ASES score were 0.95, 0.86 and 0.94, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total ASES was 0.88. The correlation between the total ASES and total SPADI score was −0.82; the correlation coefficient between the ASES pain subscale and SPADI pain subscale was −0.79 (p < 0.000); and the correlation between the ASES and SPADI function subscales were −0.53 (p < 0.000). The highest correlation was between ASES and SF-36 bodily pain, as well as ASES and SF-36 mental health (r = 0.64, r = 0.56, p < 0.000), and the lowest correlations were between ASES and the SF-36 physical component score and between ASES and SF-36 social function (r = 0.28, r = 0.33 p < 0.000).

Conclusion

The Turkish version of the ASES is a valid and reliable shoulder assessment form that can be used for numerous shoulder disorders.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Angst F, Goldhahn J, Pap G, Mannion AF, Roach KE, Siebertz D (2007) Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the German Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). Rheumatology (Oxford) 46:87–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Angst F, Pap G, Mannion AF (2004) Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total shoulder arthroplasty: usefulness and validity of subjective outcome measures. Arthritis Rheum 51:819–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beaton D, Richards RR (1998) Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:565–572

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bicer A, Ankarali H (2010) Shoulder pain and disability index: a validation study in Turkish women. Singapore Med J 51:865–870

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 63:335–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cook KF, Roddey TS, Olson SL, Gartsman GM, Valenzuela FF, Hanten WP (2002) Reliability by surgical status of self-reported outcomes in patients who have shoulder pathologies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 32:336–346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM (2003) Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1137–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 26:1101–1108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Guillemin F (1995) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health measures. Scand J Rheumatol 24:61–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Irrgang JJ, Marx RG (2007) Clinical outcomes in sport and exercise physical therapies. In: Kolt GS, Synder-Mackler L (eds) Physical therapies in sports and exercise, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Edinburgh, pp 206–219

    Google Scholar 

  11. John M, Angst F, Awiszus F, King GJ, MacDermid JC, Simmen BR (2010) The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Elbow Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation into German and evaluation of its psychometric properties. J Hand Ther 23:301–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Knaut LA, Moser AD, Melo Sde A, Richards RR (2010) Translation and cultural adaptation to the Portuguese language of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder assessment form (ASES) for evaluation of shoulder function. Rev Bras Reumatol 50:176–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 87:2006–2011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G (1999) Kısa form-36’nın Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi 12:102–106

    Google Scholar 

  15. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurament of observer agreeement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 11:587–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Oksuz C. http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/translate.htm

  19. Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E, Bondi R, Alviti F, Castagna A (2010) Italian version of ASES questionnaire for shoulder assessment: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Musculoskelet Surg 94(Suppl 1):S85–S90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Richards R, An KN, Bigliani LA (1994) Standardized method of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3:347–352

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y (1991) Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res 4:143–149

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Skutek M, Fremerey RW, Zeichen J, Bosch U (2000) Outcome analysis following open rotator cuff repair: early effectiveness validated using four different shoulder assessment scales. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120:432–436

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tuğay U, Tuğay N, Gelecek N, Özkan M (2011) Oxford Shoulder Score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:687–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wright RW, Baumgarten KM (2010) Shoulder outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18:436–444

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yahia A, Guermazi M, Khmekhem M, Ghroubi S, Ayedi K, Elleuch MH (2011) Translation into Arabic and validation of the ASES index in assessment of shoulder disabilities. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 54:59–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the physical therapy undergraduate students for their help.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul University, Millet Street, 34093, Çapa, Istanbul, Turkey

    Derya Çelik

  2. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ata Can Atalar

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Demirhan

  4. Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ahmet Dirican

Authors
  1. Derya Çelik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ata Can Atalar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehmet Demirhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmet Dirican
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derya Çelik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Çelik, D., Atalar, A.C., Demirhan, M. et al. Translation, cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Turkish ASES questionnaire. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2184–2189 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2183-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2183-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation