STUDY DESIGN: Clinical measurement, longitudinal; multicenter prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems being treated in physical therapy. BACKGROUND: The clinimetric properties of the PSFS have not been established nor compared with region-specific outcome measures in patients with upper extremity problems. METHODS: Patients completed the PSFS, Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI), and numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) at baseline and follow-up, and were categorized as improved, stable, or worsened, using the global rating of change. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the change scores of the stable and improved groups, using independent-samples t tests. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC_2,1) with 95% confidence intervals. Bland-Altman plots determined limits of agreement. Responsiveness and minimal important difference (MID) were determined with receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: One hundred eighty patients met the inclusion criteria. Construct validity was supported for the PSFS and the UEFI (P<.001). Reliability was moderate to good for the PSFS (ICC_2,1 = 0.713) and UEFI (ICC_2,1 = 0.848). Reported estimates of reliability may be lower than true values because the group of “stable” patients from this cohort had, on average, a small positive change. Bland-Altman plots indicated good agreement. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was significantly different from the null value of 0.5 for the PSFS (0.887) and the UEFI (0.877), indicating good accuracy in distinguishing improved patients from stable patients. MID was 1.2 for the PSFS (scale, 0-10) and 8.5 for the UEFI (scale, 0-80). CONCLUSION: The PSFS is a valid, reliable, and responsive outcome measure for patients with upper extremity problems.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(2):56-65. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3953

KEY WORDS: clinical measurement, instrument validation, outcome measure, upper limb

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To establish the major clinically important improvement (MCII) of the timed up-and-go test (TUG), 40-meter self-paced walk test (40-m SPWT), 30-second chair stand (30 CST), and a 20-cm step test in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing physiotherapy treatment. As a secondary aim, a comparison of methods was employed to evaluate the effect of method on the reported MCII. BACKGROUND: Minimal clinically important difference scores are commonly used by rehabilitation professionals to determine patient response following treatment. A gold standard for calculating MCII has yet to be determined, which has resulted in problems of interpretation due to varied results. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial, 65 patients were randomized into a physiotherapy treatment group for hip OA, in which they completed 4 physical performance measures at baseline and 9 weeks. Upon completion of physiotherapy, patients assessed their response to treatment on a 15-point global rating of change scale (GRCS). MCII was estimated using 3 variations of an anchor-based method, based on the patient’s opinion. RESULTS: A comparison of 3 methods resulted in the following change scores being best associated with our definition of MCII: a reduction equal to or greater than 0.8, 1.4, and 1.2 seconds for the TUG; an increase equal to or greater than 0.2, 0.3, and 0.2 m/s for the 40-m SPWT; an increase equal to or greater than 2.0, 2.6, and 2.1 repetitions for the 30 CST; an increase equal to or greater than 5.0, 12.8, and 16.4 steps for the 20-cm step test. CONCLUSION: The variation in methods provided very different results. This illustrates the importance of comparing methodologies and reporting a range of values associated with the MCII, as such values vary, depending upon the methodology chosen.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(5):319-327, Epub 18 February 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3515

KEY WORDS: outcome assessment, rehabilitation, task performance and analysis, timed up and go