Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The German Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire: reliability, validity, responsiveness, and comparison with the Short Form 36 and Constant score—a prospective evaluation of patients undergoing repair for rotator cuff tear

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a prospective clinical trial, first the German Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire (SMFA-D) was tested for reliability, validity, and responsiveness in 23 patients with rotator cuff tears, and secondly the Short Form (SF)-36, and the Constant score were evaluated comparatively in 45 patients with rotator cuff tear undergoing open repair. Retest reliability was excellent for the functional index of the SMFA-D and satisfactory for the bother index. The SMFA-D showed good validity and responsiveness. All three instruments demonstrated significantly the positive effect of rotator cuff repair at 12-month follow-up. Using comparable scales, effect sizes were bigger with the SMFA-D than with the SF-36 and as big as the Constant score. Significant correlations of the SMFA-D indices with the SF-36 scales and the Constant score could be shown preoperatively. At 12-month follow-up, all correlations between SMFA-D indices, SF-36 scales, and Constant score function scales were still significant. We recommend use of the SMFA-D to assess changes in functional status concerning patients with rotator cuff tear undergoing open repair.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cofield RH, Parvizi J, Hoffmeyer PJ, Lanzer WL, Ilstrup DM, Rowland CM (2001) Surgical repair of chronic rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:71–77

    Google Scholar 

  2. Watson EM, Sonnabend DH (2002) Outcome of rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:201–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Milgrom C, Schaffler M, Gilbert S, Van Holsbeck M (1995) Rotator cuff changes in asymptomatic adults. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77: 296–298

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gohlke F (1993) Ultrasonographic appearance of the rotator cuff in elderly subjects. Orthopäde 22:288–293

    Google Scholar 

  5. Constant CR (1984) Age related recovery of shoulder function after injury. Thesis, University College, Cork

  6. Constant CR, Murley AGH (1987) A clinical method of function assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 214:160–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Richards RR, Kai-Nan An, Bilgiani LU et al (1994) A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3:347–352

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mancuso CA, Altchek DW, Craig EV, Jones EC, Robbins L, Warren RF, Williams-Russo P (2002) Patients’ expectations of shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:541–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Swiontkowski MF, Buckwalter JA, Keller RB, Haralson R (1999) The outcomes movement in orthopaedic surgery: where we are and where we should go. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:732–740

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Swiontkowski MF, Engelberg R, Martin DP, Angel J (1999) Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: reliability, validity and responsiveness. J. Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1245–1260

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koenig A, Kirschner S, Walther M, Boehm D, Faller H (2000) I. Cultural adaptation, practicability and reliability evaluation of the Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment Questionnaire. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 138:295–301

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koenig A, Walther M, Matzer M, Heesen T, Kirschner S, Faller H (2000) II. Validity and sensitivity to change of the Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment Questionnaire in primary gonarthrosis and total endoprosthetic joint replacement. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 138:302–305

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kirschner S, Walther M, Boehm D, Matzer M, Heesen T, Faller H, König A (2003) German short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire (SMFA-D): comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC in a prospective evaluation in patients with primary osteoarthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Rheumatol Int 23:15–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bullinger M, Kirchberger I (1998) SF 36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand. Hohgrefe, Göttingen

  15. Conboy VB, Morris RW, Kiss J, Carr AJ (1996) An evaluation of the Constant-Murley Shoulder Assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78: 229–232

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gerber C (1996) Use of Constant Score for assessing shoulder instability. Instructional course, 9th Congress of the SECEC/ESSES, Nottingham

  17. Boehm TD, Mueller T, Rehwald C, Gohlke F, Barthel T, Eulert J (1997) Age and sex related Constant Murely Score. J Shoulder and Elbow Surg 6:194

    Google Scholar 

  18. Boehm TD (2002) Schulter scoring. In: Gohlke F, Hedtmann A (eds) Die Schulter. Thieme, Berlin, pp 90–94

  19. Ahrens W, Bellach BM, Joeckel KH (1998) Messung soziodemographischer Merkmale in der Epidemiologie. Medizin Verlag, Munich

  20. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27 [Suppl 3]:178–189

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wright JG, Young NL (1997) A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 50:239–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Beaton DE, Richards RR (1996) Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:882–890

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McKee, Yoo DJ (2000) The effect of surgery for rotator cuff disease on general health status. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:970–979

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dawson J, Hill G, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (2002) Comparison of clinical and patient-based measures to assess medium-term outcomes following shoulder surgery for disorders of the rotator cuff. Arthritis Rheum 47:513–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gartsman GM, Brinker MR, Khan M, Karahan M (1998) Self-assessment of general health status in patients with five common shoulder conditions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:228–237

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gazielly DF, Gleyze P, Montagnon C (1994) Functional and anatomical results after rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop 304:43–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Plafki C, Hedtmann A, Fett H, Lutke A, Willburger RE (1997) Results of surgical therapy of ruptures of the rotator cuff of the shoulder. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135:360–367

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Knudsen HB, Gelineck J, Sojbjerg JO, Olsen BS, Johannsen HV, Sneppen O (1999) Functional and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation after single-tendon rotator cuff reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8:242–246

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Machner A, Pap G, Mohrenweiser L, Merk H, Neumann HW (2001) Comparison of two surgical techniques in isolated supraspinatus rupture. A matched-pair study. Unfallchirurg 104:19–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hollinshead RM, Mohtadi NG, Van de Guchte RA, Wadey VM (2000) Two 6-year follow-up studies of large and massive rotator cuff tears: comparison of outcome measures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 9:373–381

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kirschner S, Walther M, Boehm D, Wollmerstedt N, Koenig, Faller H (2003) Unterschiede im Rehabilitationsverlauf nach totalendoprothetischem Ersatz von Hüft- und Kniegelenk mit dem SMFA-D und dem SF-36. DRV Sonderausgabe 40:346–348

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Jochen Schneider for collection of the questionnaires. The SMFA-D questionnaire and its clinical results are available online for download at http://www.smfa-d.de.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    T. D. Böhm, S. Kirschner, M. Köhler, N. Wollmerstedt & M. Walther

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany

    M. Matzer

  3. Department of Psychotherapy and Medical Psychology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    H. Faller

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Klinik Am Eichert, 73006, Göppingen, Germany

    A. König

Authors
  1. T. D. Böhm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Kirschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Köhler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Wollmerstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Walther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Matzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. Faller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. König
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. König.

Additional information

This study is a project of the Rehabilitation Research Network of Bavaria funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research and the German Statutory Pension Insurance (http://www.smfa-d.de).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Böhm, T.D., Kirschner, S., Köhler, M. et al. The German Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire: reliability, validity, responsiveness, and comparison with the Short Form 36 and Constant score—a prospective evaluation of patients undergoing repair for rotator cuff tear. Rheumatol Int 25, 86–93 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-003-0423-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-003-0423-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation