ÌÀÍ·Ìõapp

Tibial Plateau Fractures (SMFA Dysfunction Index): (Dattani et al., 2012; n = 55; mean age = 48 years (age range: 34-77); mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) = 10.4 (9-34); assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months post-operative follow-up)

• MCID = 4.4 points (p < .03)

Lower Extremity Fracture (Dutch SMFA): (Van Son et al., 2013; n = 105)

• Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = .90)

Upper Extremity Fracture (Dutch SMFA): (Van Son et al., 2013; n = 167)

• Poor test-retest reliability (ICC = .68)

Lower Extremity Fracture (Dutch SMFA): (Van Son et al., 2013)

• Excellent: Cronbach's alpha = 0.86-0.95*

Upper Extremity Fracture (Dutch SMFA): (Van Son et al., 2013)

• Excellent: Cronbach's alpha = 0.81-0.95*

*Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Lower Extremity Fracture (Dutch SMFA): (Van Son et al., 2013)

• Convergent validity: High correlations with Lower extremity dysfunction and the RAND-36 Physical functioning subscale (r = .80) and WHOQOL-BREF Physical health domain (r = .65)

• Discriminant validity: Low correlation with the factor Upper extremity dysfunction and all RAND-36 subscales (r = .06-.28) and all WHOQOL-BREF domains (r = .10-.21)

Upper Extremity Fracture (Dutch SMFA): (Van Son et al., 2013)

• Convergent validity: High correlation with RAND-36 Physical functioning subscale (r = .68) and the WHOQOL-BREF Physical health domain (r = .68)

• Discriminant validity: Low correlation with RAND-36 subscale General health perception (r = .26) and the WHOQOL-BREF domain Social relationships (r = .23)

Lower Extremity Fracture (Dutch SMFA): (Van Son et al., 2013)

• Poor ceiling effect of 36.8% in Upper Extremity Dysfunction domain

• Excellent floor effects

Upper Extremity Fracture (Dutch SMFA): (Van Son et al., 2013)

• Poor ceiling effect of 30.5% in Lower Extremity Dysfunction domain

• Adequate ceiling effect of 4.4% in Daily Life Consequences domain

• Excellent floor effects

Tibial Plateau Fracture: (Dattani et al., 2012); assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months post-operative follow-up)

• No floor or ceiling effects observed

Femoral Neck Fracture: (Hedbeck et al., 2010; n = 120; age range = 70-90 years)

• Statistically significant for internal responsiveness for both the Dysfunction Index and Bother Index (p = < 0.001)

Musculoskeletal Disorders: (Bouffard, Bertrand-Charette, & Roy, 2015; n = 42)

• SEM for the Dysfunction Index = 7.8

• SEM for the Bother Index = 10.1

Rotator Cuff Tear (German SMFA): (B?hm et al., 2004; n = 45; mean age = 58.2 years)

• SEM for the Dysfunction Index = 2.44

• SEM for the Bother Index = 8.15

Musculoskeletal Conditions: (Swiontkowski et al., 1999; n = 420)

• SEM for the Dysfunction Index = 4.479

• SEM for the Bother Index = 7.219

Severely Injured Patients (Dutch SMFA): (van Delft-Schreurs et al., 2016; n = 173; mean age of 46 years (SD 19); median ISS = 21; 1.3-4.4 years after injury;)

• SEM for Upper Extremity Dysfunction = 5.34

• SEM for Lower Extremity Dysfunction = 4.98

• SEM for Emotion = 6.61

Skeletal muscle injury of upper or lower extremities (Chinese SMFA): (Wang et al., 2015; n = 339; mean age = 46 years (SD = 16.0))

• SEM for Dysfunction Index = 3.468

• SEM for Bother Index = 4.643

Musculoskeletal Disorders: (Bouffard, Bertrand-Charette, & Roy, 2015)

• MDC for the Dysfunction Index = 21.6

• MDC for the Bother Index = 28

Rotator Cuff Tear (German SMFA): (B?hm et al., 2004)

• MDC for the Dysfunction Index = 6.76

• MDC for the Bother Index = 22.59

Musculoskeletal Conditions: (Swiontkowski et al., 1999; n = 420)

• MDC at 95% for the Dysfunction Index = 12.42

• MDC at 95% for the Bother Index = 20.01

Severely Injured Patients (Dutch SMFA): (van Delft-Schreurs et al., 2016)

• MDC for Upper Extremity Dysfunction = 14.81

• MDC for Lower Extremity Dysfunction = 13.80

• MDC for Emotion = 18.32

Skeletal muscle injury of upper or lower extremities (Chinese SMFA): (Wang et al., 2015)

• MDC for Dysfunction Index = 9.61

• MDC for Bother Index = 12.87

Musculoskeletal Disorders: (Bouffard, Bertrand-Charette, & Roy, 2015)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for the Dysfunction Index: (ICC = 0.94)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for the Bother Index: (ICC = 0.87)

Musculoskeletal Conditions: (Swiontkowski et al., 1999; n = 420)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for the Dysfunction Index: (ICC = 0.93)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for the Bother Index: (ICC = 0.88)

Musculoskeletal Conditions (German SMFA): (Wollmerstedt et al., 2006)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for the Dysfunction Index: (ICC = 0.89-0.96)

• Satisfactory test-retest reliability for the Bother Index: (ICC = 0.67-0.94)

Rotator Cuff Tear (German SMFA): (B?hm et al., 2004)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for the Dysfunction Index: (ICC = 0.96)

• Satisfactory test-retest reliability for the Bother Index: (ICC = 0.75)

Rotator Cuff Tear (German SMFA): (B?hm et al., 2004)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.93 for Dysfunction Index

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.88 for Bother Index

Musculoskeletal Disorders: (Bouffard, Bertrand-Charette, & Roy, 2015)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha > 0.87 for both the Dysfunction and Bother Indices

Musculoskeletal Conditions: (Swiontkowski et al., 1999)

• Excellent: Cronbach's alpha = 0.95-0.96* for Dysfunction Index

• Excellent: Cronbach's alpha = 0.92-0.95* for Bother Index

Musculoskeletal Conditions (German SMFA): (Wollmerstedt et al., 2006)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.91 for Dysfunction Index

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.88-0.98 for Bother Index.

Severely Injured Patients (Dutch SMFA): (van Delft-Schreurs et al., 2016; n = 173; mean age of 46 years (SD = 19); median ISS = 21; 1.3-4.4 years after injury;)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha > 0.90 for Upper Extremity Dysfunction, Lower Extremity Dysfunction, and Emotional Status Indices

Skeletal muscle injury of upper or lower extremities (Chinese SMFA): (Wang et al., 2015; n = 339; mean age = 46 years (SD = 16.0))

• Satisfactory: Cronbach¡¯s alpha = 0.87-0.94 for Arm and Hand Function, Mobility, Daily Activities, Emotional Status, Dysfunction, and Bother Indices

*Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Predictive validity:

Musculoskeletal Conditions

• Excellent predictive validity found with receiver operating characteristic analyses showing area under the curve to be 0.94 for both the Dysfunction and Bother Indices (Swiontkowski et al., 1999).

Extremity Vascular Injury

• Excellent concurrent validity determined through:

  • Score comparisons between disabled and nondisabled patients as determined by Medicare Part A (p < 0.01 for dysfunction index, p = 0.004 for bother index).

  • Score comparisons between severe (MESS > 7) and nonsevere (MESS < 7) limb injury scores (p = 0.031 for dysfunction index and p = 0.032 for bother index). (Scott et al., 2014; n = 164)

Skeletal muscle injury of upper or lower extremities (Chinese SMFA): (Wang et al., 2015)

• Good concurrent validity of the dysfunction and bother index of the SMFA discriminating between patients who differed in their age (p < 0.001, p = 0.008), gender (p = 0.008, p = 0.005), injury location (p < 0.001, p = 0.016) and operation status (p < 0.001, p < 0.001) - p-values evaluated at a significance level of 0.05

• Poor concurrent validity for the dysfunction index and bother index of SMFA for subgroups based on BMI (p = 0.856, p = 0.294) - p-values evaluated at a significance level of 0.05

Rotator Cuff Tear (German SMFA): (B?hm et al., 2004)

• Criterion validity was established of the SMFA indices discriminating between pain intensity reported (p < 0.01) and shoulder function disability ratings by both patients (p < 0.01) and physicians (p < 0.01)

• At the twelve month follow up examination the paint intensity reported by patients (p < 0.01) and shoulder function improvement ratings by patients (p < 0.01) and physicians (p < 0.05) correlated with the bother and function indices

Discriminant validity:

Rotator Cuff Tear (German SMFA): (B?hm et al., 2004)

• The SMFA was able to differentiate between patients in both function and bother indices between patients having no to medium pain and those having medium to severe pain.

• The Bother Index was 28.14 (10.7) and Function Index 40.8 (12.2) in patients reporting no to medium pain, and 40.0 (15.2) and 55.0 (15.0), respectively

Convergent validity:

Musculoskeletal Conditions

• Poor to Adequate convergent validity of the SMFA with physician¡¯s ratings was found with Spearman¡¯s correlation values ranging from r = 0.10-0.46. (Swiontkowski et al., 1999)

• Adequate to Excellent convergent validity of the SMFA with the SF-36 was found with correlation values ranging from r = 0.47-0.78. (Swiontkowski et al., 1999)

• Adequate to Excellent construct validity was determined from comparison with SF-36, MCS and disease-specific questionnaires. (Wollmerstedt et al., 2006) (German SMFA)

Extremity Vascular Injury

• Adequate to excellent convergent validity of the SMFA with the SF-36 was found with Pearson¡¯s correlation values ranging from r = 0.48-0.67. (Scott et al., 2014)

Severely Injured Patients (Dutch SMFA): (van Delft-Schreurs et al., 2016)

• Poor to Excellent convergent validity of the SMFA factors Lower Extremity Dysfunction and Upper Extremity Dysfunction with the WHOQOL-BREF Physical Health Domain r = 0.70 & r = 0.58, respectively (poor correlation with the WHOQOL-BREF Physical Health Domain Social Relationship and the factors Upper Extremity Dysfunction and Lower Extremity Dysfunction)

Skeletal muscle injury of upper or lower extremities (Chinese SMFA): (Wang et al., 2015)

• Moderate to Good correlations between the Mobility category, Dysfunction Index, and the Bother Index with the three subscales (PF, RP, and BP) of the SF-36

• Excellent correlations between SMFA and Kaiser-Meyer Olkin value, r = 0.953.

Musculoskeletal Disorders: (Bouffard, Bertrand-Charette, & Roy, 2015)

• Adequate convergent-divergent validity of the SMFA was found between the dysfunction and bother index = 0.42-0.81

Musculoskeletal Disorder:(Bouffard, Bertrand-Charette, & Roy, 2015)

• Researchers found content validity because both SMFA indices do not have significant floor or ceiling effects. In addition, both SMFA indices have an adequate proportion of missing items.

Rotator Cuff Tear (German SMFA): (B?hm et al., 2004)

• Researchers indicated normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with p = 0.702 for Function Index and p = 0.455 for Bother Index.

Extremity Vascular Injury

• Scott et al. (2014) noted content validity due to normal curve distribution of scores and little skew, limited ceiling and floor effects, and 0% nonresponse rates.

Musculoskeletal Conditions: (Swiontkowski et al., 1999)

• Excellent ceiling effect of 0% found for both indices

• Adequate floor effect of 0.5% found for Dysfunction Index and 2.5% for the Bother Index.

Extremity Vascular Injury: (Scott et al., 2014)

• Excellent ceiling effect of 0% found for both indices

• Adequate floor effect of 4.3% found for both indices

Severely Injured Patients (Dutch SMFA): (van Delft-Schreurs et al., 2016)

• Poor ceiling effect of 43% for patients for the factor Upper Extremity Dysfunction

Musculoskeletal Disorders: (Bouffard, Bertrand-Charette, & Roy, 2015)

• Researchers found the responsiveness of SMFA¡¯s Dysfunction Index to be high while the Bother Index is moderately to highly responsive

Musculoskeletal Conditions: (Swiontkowski et al., 1999)

• Statistically significant differences (p < 0.01) in scores from baseline to follow up for patients who reported their health was ¡°worse¡± or ¡°much worse¡± and for those who reported that their health was ¡°better¡± or ¡°much better.¡±

Rotator Cuff Tear (German SMFA): (B?hm et al., 2004)

• Significant improvements on both SMFA indices were found (p < 0.001)