HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 32/5/1270    most recent 0363546503262193v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Placzek, J. D. Articles by Wiater, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Placzek, J. D. Articles by Wiater, J. M. Related Collections Shoulder Rehabilitation/Training

Shoulder Outcome Measures

A Comparison of 6 Functional Tests

Jeff D. Placzek, MD, PT^*,,, Steven C. Lukens, MPT, Sabrina Badalanmenti, MPT^||, Paul J. Roubal, PhD, MS^¶, D. Carl Freeman, PhD^#, Kim M. Walleman, MPT^**, Amy Parrot, MPT and J. Michael Wiater, MD

From Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, Oakland University Program in Physical Therapy, Rochester, Michigan, Port Huron Hospital Sport and Spine, Fort Gratiot, Michigan, ^|| Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, ^¶ Physical Therapy Specialists, Troy, Michigan, ^# Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, ^** Orthocare Physical Therapy, Roseville, Michigan, and William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan

^* Address correspondence to Jeff D. Placzek, MD, PT, Michigan Hand and Wrist, 47601 Grand River Avenue, Suite A222, Novi, MI 48374 (e-mail: placzek{at}oakland.edu).

Background: Several shoulder function scores are used in research, with no universally adopted standard. This study compares 6 shoulder outcome scales.

Hypothesis: Correlations exist between shoulder outcome scales, allowing conversion between scales. Shoulder scales are correlated with age.

Study Design: Regression and correlation study.

Methods: Seventy subjects with shoulder pain completed 6 shoulder outcome scales. Pearson correlations were calculated between the total scores of the 6 instruments, between the components of the scales, and with age. Regression equations were calculated between scales.

Results: The range of r values for total scores was 0.495 r 0.770, P .01. In general, a scale’s components were themselves highly correlated and added little new information to the scale (0.260 r 0.705, P .05). Most of the scale scores were highly correlated with age (0.291 r 0.582, P .05). Constant’s reported corrections for age reduced (from r = –0.582 to r = –0.250, P < .05) but did not eliminate age as a confounding variable.

Conclusions: Correlations exist between shoulder outcome scales, but existing shoulder scales are not equivalent in their assessments of function; they contain redundant information and, in some cases, may reflect a patient’s age better than his/her shoulder function. The utility of conversion equations is minimized as a result of low to moderate correlations between scales.

Key Words: outcomes • shoulder • function • assessment

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. L. del Cura, I. Torre, R. Zabala, and A. Legorburu Sonographically Guided Percutaneous Needle Lavage in Calcific Tendinitis of the Shoulder: Short- and Long-Term Results Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): W128 - W134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]