Validity and reliability of the Swedish version of the Patient Specific Functional Scale in patients treated surgically for carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in patients with neck pain

“…This result was similar to that of previous studies in patients with low back pain and neck pain (0.97 and 0.92, respectively) [3,4]. However, other prior studies have also shown reliability of 0.84 and 0.79, which were lower than in the present study [17,18]. This discrepancy in results may have been caused by the fact that patients were told their initial test scores at the re-test for studies with high reliability, including this study, and patients were not told their initial scores in studies that resulted in lower reliability.…”

“…Moreover, the MDC was 0.64, and the patients were considered to have truly changed clinically when the mean score of the three types of activities exceeded this value. Although this finding was similar to the MDC of a previous study that also investigated patients with neck dysfunction (0.99) [4], other prior studies have reported greater MDC (1.5-3) scores [6,17,18] than the present study. Studies that had greater MDC values than this study investigated knee joint disorders, cervical radiculopathy, and upper limb impairment, indicating that a difference in the disorder studied appears to affect the results.…”

“…However, the possibility of a floor effect has been indicated as a potential problem with the PSFS [17]. Previous studies that investigated patients with low back pain [3] and knee dysfunction [18] showed that the mean scores of the initial PSFS were 3.6 and 3.1, respectively, both of which were lower than the scores from the present study. However, a different previous study that investigated patients with neck pain demonstrated that the score ranged from 4.7 to 5.2 in the three activities, similar to the results of the present study [4].…”

“…This discrepancy in results may have been caused by the fact that patients were told their initial test scores at the re-test for studies with high reliability, including this study, and patients were not told their initial scores in studies that resulted in lower reliability. Though there may be a selection bias for the method of this study, it has been indicated that providing initial test scores at re-test can not only decrease measurement errors, but it can also result in a more accurate re-test [18].…”

The clinical burden of generalized osteoarthritis represented by self-reported health-related quality of life and activity limitations: a cross-sectional study

“…In addition, patients rated the severity of each activity on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 = no difficulty, 10 = impossible) [23]. Patient-specific approaches to measure functional limitations have been shown to be reliable, valid and responsive in patients with several musculoskeletal conditions [23,24]. These activity limitations were then linked to the Activities and Participation component of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [25].…”