Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Dutch Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI): a reliability and validation study

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Dutch Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI-D).

Background

The SPADI is recommended and frequently used. However, the validity and reliability of the SPADI-D are unknown.

Methods

The study population consisted of patients consulting a physical therapist for shoulder pain. We assessed construct validity, using known groups, convergent validity (SDQ) and divergent validity (EQ5D) for which the mean difference or Spearman correlations coefficients were calculated. The factor structure was assessed using principal component factor analysis, and we calculated Cronbach’s alpha and the ICC to assess the reliability.

Results

A total of 356 patients and a randomly selected group of 74 subjects for the reliability analysis were included. There was a significant difference between extreme groups (a high/low level of pain and work absence/presence) in SPADI score. The correlation between the SPADI and the SDQ was 0.69, with the EQ5D mobility-item 0.25 and with the depression-item 0.14. The SPADI consisted of one factor according to principal component factor analysis, which showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94 for the total score), and the test–retest reliability was good (ICC = 0.89).

Conclusion

The Dutch SPADI is a valid and reliable questionnaire for patients in primary care in assessing functional disability.

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Feleus, A., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M., Miedema, H. S., Verhaar, J. A., & Koes, B. W. (2008). Management in non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: Differences between diagnostic groups. European Spine Journal, 17(9), 1218–1229.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van der Windt, D. A., van der Heijden, G. J., de Winter, A. F., Koes, B. W., Deville, W., & Bouter, L. M. (1998). The responsiveness of the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 57(2), 82–87.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mintken, P. E., Glynn, P., & Cleland, J. A. (2009). Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 18(6), 920–926.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Paul, A., Lewis, M., Shadforth, M. F., Croft, P. R., Van Der Windt, D. A., & Hay, E. M. (2004). A comparison of four shoulder-specific questionnaires in primary care. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63(10), 1293–1299.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roach, K. E., Budiman-Mak, E., Songsiridej, N., & Lertratanakul, Y. (1991). Development of a Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Arthritis Care & Research, 4(4), 143–149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jamnik, H., & Spevak, M. K. (2008). Shoulder Pain and Disability Index: Validation of slovene version. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 31(4), 337–341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Christiansen, D. H., Andersen, J. H., & Haahr, J. P. (2013). Cross-cultural adaption and measurement properties of the Danish version of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Clinical Rehabilitation, 27(4), 355–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ekeberg, O. M., Bautz-Holter, E., Tveita, E. K., Keller, A., Juel, N. G., & Brox, J. I. (2008). Agreement, reliability and validity in 3 shoulder questionnaires in patients with rotator cuff disease. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 9, 68.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bot, S. D., Terwee, C. B., van der Windt, D. A., Bouter, L. M., Dekker, J., & de Vet, H. C. (2004). Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63(4), 335–341.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jansen, M. J., Brooijmans, F., Geraets, J. J. X. R., Lenssen, A. F., Ottenheijm, R. P. G., Penning, L. I. F., et al. (2011). KNGF Evidence Statement Subacromiale klachten. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Fysiotherapie, 121(1).

  11. Karel, Y. H., Scholten-Peeters, W. G., Thoomes-de Graaf, M., Duijn, E., Ottenheijm, R. P., Koes, B. W., et al. (2013). Current management and prognostic factors in physiotherapy practice for patients with shoulder pain: Design of a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14(1), 62.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. de Winter, A. F., van der Heijden, G. J., Scholten, R. J., van der Windt, D. A., & Bouter, L. M. (2007). The Shoulder Disability Questionnaire differentiated well between high and low disability levels in patients in primary care, in a cross-sectional study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(11), 1156–1163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lamers, L. M., McDonnell, J., Stalmeier, P. F., Krabbe, P. F., & Busschbach, J. J. (2006). The Dutch tariff: Results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Economics, 15(10), 1121–1132.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales a practical guide to the development and use. Oxford: Oxford university press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hallman, D. M., Ekman, A. H., & Lyskov, E. (2014). Changes in physical activity and heart rate variability in chronic neck-shoulder pain: Monitoring during work and leisure time. International archives of occupational and environmental health, 87(7), 735–744.

  17. Roh, Y. H., Noh, J. H., Oh, J. H., Baek, G. H., & Gong, H. S. (2012). To what degree do shoulder outcome instruments reflect patients’ psychologic distress? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 470(12), 3470–3477.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patil, V. H., Surendra, N. S., Sanjay, M., & Donovan, T. (2008). “Parallel analysis engine to aid determining number of factors to retain computer software. http://smishra.faculty.ku.edu/parallelengine.htm; utility developed as part of Patil, Vivek H., Surendra N. Singh, Sanjay Mishra, and Todd Donovan. (2008). “Efficient theory development and factor retention criteria: A case for abandoning the ‘eigenvalue greater than one’ criterion”. Journal of Business Research, 61 (2), 162–170.

  21. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. de Vet, H. C., Ader, H. J., Terwee, C. B., & Pouwer, F. (2005). Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1203–1218. (dicussion 1219–1221, 1223–1204).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Staples, M. P., Forbes, A., Green, S., & Buchbinder, R. (2010). Shoulder-specific disability measures showed acceptable construct validity and responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(2), 163–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cloke, D. J., Lynn, S. E., Watson, H., Steen, I. N., Purdy, S., & Williams, J. R. (2005). A comparison of functional, patient-based scores in subacromial impingement. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 14(4), 380–384.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hill, C. L., Lester, S., Taylor, A. W., Shanahan, M. E., & Gill, T. K. (2011). Factor structure and validity of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index in a population-based study of people with shoulder symptoms. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 12, 8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tveita, E. K., Sandvik, L., Ekeberg, O. M., Juel, N. G., & Bautz-Holter, E. (2008). Factor structure of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index in patients with adhesive capsulitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 9, 103.

  28. MacDermid, J. C., Solomon, P., & Prkachin, K. (2006). The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index demonstrates factor, construct and longitudinal validity. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 7, 12.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Roddey, T. S., Olson, S. L., Cook, K. F., Gartsman, G. M., & Hanten, W. (2000). Comparison of the University of California—Los Angeles Shoulder Scale and the simple shoulder test with the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index: Single-administration reliability and validity. Physical Therapy, 80(8), 759–768.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bicer, A., & Ankarali, H. (2010). Shoulder Pain and Disability Index: A validation study in Turkish women. Singapore Medical Journal, 51(11), 865–870.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tveita, E. K., Ekeberg, O. M., Juel, N. G., & Bautz-Holter, E. (2008). Responsiveness of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index in patients with adhesive capsulitis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 9, 161.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jeldi, A. J., Aseer, A. L., Dhandapani, A. G., & Roach, K. E. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Indian (Tamil) version of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal, 30(2), 99–104.

  33. Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (pro) measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health, 8(2), 94–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kooijman, M., Barten, J., Swinkels, I., & Veenhof, C. J. (2010). En trendcijfers 2006–2010 fysiotherapie. Landelijke Informatievoorziening Paramedische Zorg. Utrecht: NIVEL. http://www.nivel.nl/lipz

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is financed by the SIA-RAAK Grant serving exclusively for lectureships and knowledge networks at Universities of Applied Sciences.

Conflict of interest

I affirm that I have no financial affiliation (including research funding) or involvement with any commercial organization that has direct financial interest in any matter included in this manuscript.

Ethical standard

The Medical Ethical Committee of the Erasmus University approved this study, nr mec-2011-414.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Group Diagnostics, Avans University of Applied Science, Breda, The Netherlands

    Marloes Thoomes-de Graaf, Gwendolijne G. M. Scholten-Peeters, Edwin Duijn, Yasmaine Karel & Arianne P. Verhagen

  2. Department of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Marloes Thoomes-de Graaf, Gwendolijne G. M. Scholten-Peeters, Edwin Duijn, Yasmaine Karel, Bart W. Koes & Arianne P. Verhagen

  3. Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Research Institute MOVE, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Gwendolijne G. M. Scholten-Peeters

Authors
  1. Marloes Thoomes-de Graaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gwendolijne G. M. Scholten-Peeters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edwin Duijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yasmaine Karel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bart W. Koes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arianne P. Verhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marloes Thoomes-de Graaf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thoomes-de Graaf, M., Scholten-Peeters, G.G.M., Duijn, E. et al. The Dutch Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI): a reliability and validation study. Qual Life Res 24, 1515–1519 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0879-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0879-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation