Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To adapt the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index for use in Turkey and to investigate its reliability and validity; the Turkish version of the WORC was developed according to the guidelines in the literature. Seventy-two patients with rotator cuff disease were administered the questionnaire and were also evaluated by using the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder rating scale, Constant score, and Short Form (SF)-36 to test validity. The WORC questionnaire was repeated in 35 patients after a mean interval of 2.9 days (range 2–7 days) to evaluate test–retest reliability. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated as 0.92 for the total questionnaire. The intraclass correlation coefficients were very high and ranged between 0.96 and 0.98 for each section. There was a significant negative correlation between the Turkish version of WORC and UCLA (r = −0.598, P < 0.01), Constant score (r = −0.630, P < 0.01), and all subscales of SF-36 (P < 0.01). The Turkish version of the WORC index is a reliable and valid instrument for use in clinical trials in patients with rotator cuff disorders.

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. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622–629

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kirkley A, Griffin S (2003) Development of disease-specific quality of life measurement tools. ISAKOS Scientific Committee Report. Arthroscopy 19(10):1121–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K (2003) Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 19(10):1109–1120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ware JJ, Kosinki M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary test of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rekola KE, Keinannen KS, Takala J (1993) Use of primary health services in sparsely populated country districts by patients with musculoskeletal symptoms: consultations with a physician. J Epidemiol Community Health 47:153–157

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gomoll AH, Katz JN, Warner JJP, Millett PJ (2004) Rotator cuff disorders: recognition and management among patients with shoulder pain. Arthritis Rheum 50(12):3751–3761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Amstutz HC, Sew Hoy AL, Clarke IC (1981) UCLA anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 155:7–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Richards RR, An K-N, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, Ianotti JP, Mow VC, Sidles JA, Zuckerman JD (1994) A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3:347–352

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 29:602–608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Constant CR, Murley AHG (1987) A clinical method for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 214:160–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Michener LA, Leggin BG (2001) A review of self-report scales for the assessment of functional limitation and disability of the shoulder. J Hand Ther 14:68–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lippitt SB, Harryman DT II, Matsen FA III (1992) A practical tool for evaluating function: the Simple Shoulder Test. In: Matsen FA, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ (eds) The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stability. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, pp. 501–518

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kirkley A, Griffin S, McLintock H, Ng L (1998) The development and evaluation of disease specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability: the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Am J Sports Med 26:764–772

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lo IKY, Griffin S, Kirkley A (2001) The development and evaluation of disease specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder: the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 9:771–778

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirkley A, Griffin S, Alvarez C (2003) The development and evaluation of disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for rotator cuff disease: the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC). Clin J Sport Med 13:84–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Freeman KB, Back S, Bernstein J (2001) Sample size and statistical power of randomized, controlled trials in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:397–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Acquadro C, Jambon B, Ellis D, Marquis P (1996) Language and translation issues. In: Spiker B (ed) Quality of life pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, pp 575–585

    Google Scholar 

  20. World Health Organization (1984) The Constitution of the World Health Organization (Basic Documents). World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kocyigit H, Aydemir O, Fisek G, Olmez N, Memis A (1999) Kısa form 36 (KF-36)’nın Türkçe versiyonun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi 12:102–106

    Google Scholar 

  22. Küçükdeveci A, McKenna SP, Kutlay S, Gürsel Y, Whalley D, Arasıl T (2000) The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of Nothingham Health Profile. Int J Rehabil Res 23:31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C (2001) Measuring hole or the parts? Validity and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther 14:128–146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Donner A, Bellamy N, Roth JH (2000) Responsiveness of the SF-36, DASH, patient-rated wrist evaluation and physical impairments in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture. J Hand Surg (Am) 25:330–340

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Andersson B, Dahlgren E, Johansson A (2000) The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire. Reliability and validity of the Swedish version evaluated in 176 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 71(6):613–618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Johnsson R, Sprinchorn A (1999) Symptoms, disability, and quality of life with carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg (Am) 24:398–404

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Triffitt PD, Wildin C, Hajioff D (1999) The reproducibility of measurement of shoulder movement. Acta Orthop Scand 70:322–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Dokuz Eylul University, School of Medicine, Balcova, 35340, Izmir, Turkey

    Ozlem El, Cigdem Bircan, Selmin Gulbahar, Ebru Sahin, Meltem Baydar, Ramazan Kizil & Elif Akalin

  2. Department of Public Health, Dokuz Eylul University, School of Medicine, Balcova, 35340, Izmir, Turkey

    Yucel Demiral

  3. Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, 3M Centre, University of Ontario, London, ON, Canada, N6A 3K7

    Sharon Griffin

Authors
  1. Ozlem El
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cigdem Bircan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Selmin Gulbahar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yucel Demiral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ebru Sahin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Meltem Baydar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ramazan Kizil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sharon Griffin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Elif Akalin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ozlem El.

Appendix

Appendix

WESTERN ONTARIO ROTATOR KAF ÖLÇEĞİ

figure afigure afigure afigure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

El, O., Bircan, C., Gulbahar, S. et al. The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Rheumatol Int 26, 1101–1108 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-006-0151-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-006-0151-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation