About
Scope & Aims
Editorial office
Editorial board
Reviewers
Ethical standards and procedures
Abstracting and indexing
Contact
Articles & Issues
Current issue
Articles in press
Archive
For Authors
General rules
Guide for authors
Templates
Publication charge
For Reviewers
Guide for reviewers
Our reviewers
ORIGINAL PAPER
Validation and reliability of the Munich Shoulder Questionnaire for Turkish patients with shoulder dysfunction
1
Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep, Turkey
2
Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
3
Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Submission date: 2020-06-09
Acceptance date: 2020-07-09
Publication date: 2022-03-29
Physiother Quart. 2022;30(1):18-23
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Shoulder dysfunction is one of the most important upper extremity problems that limit the quality of life of individuals. Munich Shoulder Questionnaire (MSQ) is a self-assessment tool that allows an easy follow-up and evaluation for clinicians. The aim of this study was to describe the process applied to translate MSQ into Turkish and to test its validity and reliability.
Methods:
The questionnaire involves socio-demographic data, as well as objective and subjective items for shoulder dysfunction. The study investigated 180 patients with shoulder dysfunction. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by the intra-class correlation coefficient. Pearson’s correlation coefficient served to examine the convergent validity. The SPSS 23.0 software was used for the statistical analysis.
Results:
The patients’ average age equalled 44.3 ± 11.6 years. In most cases (76.7%), the diagnosis was shoulder impingement syndrome. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the MSQ objective and subjective sections were 0.73 and 0.96, respectively. The MSQ total score was positively correlated with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire total score (r = 0.70; p < 0.01) and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index total score (r = 0.65; p < 0.01).
Conclusions:
The Turkish version of MSQ is a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument for evaluating shoulder dysfunctions. In addition, MSQ-Turkish is satisfactory for evaluating shoulder dysfunctions and its use is recommended to follow up conservative, manipulative, and surgical treatments.
Shoulder dysfunction is one of the most important upper extremity problems that limit the quality of life of individuals. Munich Shoulder Questionnaire (MSQ) is a self-assessment tool that allows an easy follow-up and evaluation for clinicians. The aim of this study was to describe the process applied to translate MSQ into Turkish and to test its validity and reliability.
Methods:
The questionnaire involves socio-demographic data, as well as objective and subjective items for shoulder dysfunction. The study investigated 180 patients with shoulder dysfunction. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by the intra-class correlation coefficient. Pearson’s correlation coefficient served to examine the convergent validity. The SPSS 23.0 software was used for the statistical analysis.
Results:
The patients’ average age equalled 44.3 ± 11.6 years. In most cases (76.7%), the diagnosis was shoulder impingement syndrome. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the MSQ objective and subjective sections were 0.73 and 0.96, respectively. The MSQ total score was positively correlated with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire total score (r = 0.70; p < 0.01) and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index total score (r = 0.65; p < 0.01).
Conclusions:
The Turkish version of MSQ is a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument for evaluating shoulder dysfunctions. In addition, MSQ-Turkish is satisfactory for evaluating shoulder dysfunctions and its use is recommended to follow up conservative, manipulative, and surgical treatments.
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Hawk C, Minkalis AL, Khorsan R, Daniels CJ, Homack D, Gliedt JA, et al. Systematic review of nondrug, nonsurgical treatment of shoulder conditions. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2017;40(5):293–319; doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2017.04.001.
2.
Struyf F, Geraerts J, Noten S, Meeus M, Nijs J. A multivariable prediction model for the chronification of non-traumatic shoulder pain: a systematic review. Pain Physician. 2016;19(2):1–10; doi: 10.36076/ppj/2016.19.1.
3.
Klintberg IH, Lind K, Marlow T, Svantesson U. Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder (WOOS) index: a cross-cultural adaptation into Swedish, including evaluation of reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with subacromial pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(12):1698–1705; doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.027.
4.
Lexell JE, Downham DY. How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(9):719–723; doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000176452.17771.20.
5.
Elsenbeck MJ, Tucker CJ, Dickens JF. Patient reported outcomes. Sports Med Update. 2018;1:2–6.
6.
Unger RZ, Burnham JM, Gammon L, Malempati CS, Jacobs CA, Makhni EC. The responsiveness of patient-reported outcome tools in shoulder surgery is dependent on the underlying pathological condition. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(1):241–247; doi: 10.1177/0363546517749213.
7.
Celik D, Atalar AC, Demirhan M, Dirican A. Translation, cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Turkish ASES questionnaire. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(9):2184–2189; doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2183-3.
8.
Düger T, Yakut E, Öksüz Ç, Yörükan S, Bilgütay BS, Ayhan C, et al. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 2006;17(3):99–107.
9.
Angst F, Schwyzer H-K, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(Suppl. 11):174–188; doi: 10.1002/acr.20630.
10.
Bumin G, Tüzün EH, Tonga E. The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI): cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2008;21(1):57–62; doi: 10.3233/BMR-2008-21108.
11.
Ozsahin M, Akgun K, Aktas I, Kurtais Y. Adaptation of the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire to the Turkish population, its reliability and validity. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31(3):241–245; doi: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e3282fb7615.
12.
Tuğay U, Tuğay N, Gelecek N, Özkan M. Oxford Shoulder Score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(5):687–694; doi: 10.1007/s00402-010-1242-9.
13.
El O, Bircan C, Gulbahar S, Demiral Y, Sahin E, Baydar M, et al. The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Rheumatol Int. 2006;26(12):1101–1108; doi: 10.1007/s00296-006-0151-2.
14.
Aytar A, Yuruk ZO, Tuzun EH, Baltaci G, Karatas M, Eker L. The Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI): cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015;28(3):489–495; doi: 10.3233/BMR-140545.
15.
Turgut E, Tunay VB. Cross-cultural adaptation of Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic shoulder and elbow score: reliability and validity in Turkish-speaking overhead athletes. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2018;52(3):206–210; doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2018.02.007.
16.
Kanik ZH, Gunaydin G, Pala OO, Sozlu U, Alkan ZB, Citaker S, et al. Translation, cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version of the Penn Shoulder Score. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(10):1214–1219; doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1284905.
17.
Ayhan Ç, Ünal E, Yakut Y. Turkish version of the Simple Shoulder Test: a reliability and validity study [in Turkish]. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 2010;21(2):68–74.
18.
Schmidutz F, Beirer M, Braunstein V, Bogner V, Wiedemann E, Biberthaler P. The Munich Shoulder Questionnaire (MSQ): development and validation of an effective patient-reported tool for outcome measurement and patient safety in shoulder surgery. Patient Saf Surg. 2012;6(1):9; doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-6-9.
19.
Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–608; doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L.
20.
Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(6):587–594; doi: 10.1067/mse.2002.127096.
21.
MacDermid JC, Solomon P, Prkachin K. The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index demonstrates factor, construct and longitudinal validity. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:12; doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-12.
22.
Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y. Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res. 1991;4(4):143–149; doi: 10.1002/art.1790040403.
23.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. The assessment of reliability. In: Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (eds.), Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994; 264–265.
24.
George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 11.0 update, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2003.
25.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–3191; doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
26.
Djordjevic OC, Vukicevic D, Katunac L, Jovic S. Mobilization with movement and kinesiotaping compared with a supervised exercise program for painful shoulder: results of a clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2012;35(6):454–463; doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2012.07.006.
27.
Allom R, Colegate-Stone T, Gee M, Ismail M, Sinha J. Outcome analysis of surgery for disorders of the rotator cuff: a comparison of subjective and objective scoring tools. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(3):367–373; doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B3.20714.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2544-4395 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
