Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of Turkish version of the university of California Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder scale into Turkish

References

• Struyf F, Geraets J, Noten S, et al. A multivariable prediction model for the chronification of non-traumatic shoulder pain: a systematic review. Pain Physician. 2016;19:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Jr., Greenfield S, et al. The medical outcomes study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA. 1989;262:925–930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27:S217–S232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amstutz HC, Sew HA, Clarke IC. UCLA anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;155:7–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellman H, Hanker G, Bayer M. Repair of the rotator cuff. End-result study of factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1136–1144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romeo AA, Bach BR, Jr., O’Halloran KL. Scoring systems for shoulder conditions. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24:472–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Connor DA, Chipchase LS, Tomlinson J, et al. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression: responsiveness of disease-specific and health-related quality of life outcome measures. Arthroscopy. 1999;15:836–840.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Booker S, Alfahad N, Scott M, et al. Use of scoring systems for assessing and reporting the outcome results from shoulder surgery and arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2015;6:244–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang H, Grant JA, Miller BS, et al. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with rotator cuff disease. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:2572–2582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roddey TS, Olson SL, Cook KF, et al. Comparison of the University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale and the Simple Shoulder Test with the shoulder pain and disability index: single-administration reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 2000;80:759–768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unger RZ, Burnham JM, Gammon L, et al. The responsiveness of patient-reported outcome tools in shoulder surgery is dependent on the underlying pathological condition. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47:241–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh JH, Jo KH, Kim WS, Gong HS, et al. Comparative evaluation of the measurement properties of various shoulder outcome instruments. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:1161–1168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makhni EC, Hamamoto JT, Higgins JD, et al. How comprehensive and efficient are patient-reported outcomes for rotator cuff tears? Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5:2325967117693223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 2003;19:1109–1120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchese C, Cristalli G, Pichi B, et al. Italian cross-cultural adaptation and validation of three different scales for the evaluation of shoulder pain and dysfunction after neck dissection: University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder Scale, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2012;32:12–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vascellari A, Venturin D, Ramponi C, et al. Psychometric properties of three different scales for subjective evaluation of shoulder pain and dysfunction in Italian patients after shoulder surgery for anterior instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27:1497–1504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oku EC, Andrade AP, Stadiniky SP, et al. Translation and cultural adaptation of the Modified-University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale to Portuguese language. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2006; 46(4):246–252.
   Google Scholar
• ŚlęZak M, Lubiatowski P, Lubiatowski B, et al. Polish cultural adaptation of general shoulder assessment score in use for painful shoulder: ASES, UCLA, Constant score, SST (part I). Preliminary study. Issue Rehabil Orthop Neurophysiol Sport Promot. 2016;17:7–27.
   Google Scholar
• Lipina MM, Lychagin AV, Archipov SV, et al. Adaptation of key questionnaires used for the assessment of the condition and function of a shoulder joint in patients with pain syndromes of different etiologies. Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics. 2018;4(34):44–50.
   Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–3191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfrey J, Hamman R, Lowenstein S, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simple shoulder test: psychometric properties by age and injury type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16:260–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3:347–352.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laucis NC, Hays RD, Bhattacharyya T. Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a brief guide. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:1628–1634.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik D, Atalar AC, Demirhan M, et al. Translation, cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Turkish ASES questionnaire. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2184–2189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayhan CU, Yakut Y. Turkish version of the Simple Shoulder Test: a reliability and validity study. Fizyoter Rehab. 2010;21:68–74.
   Google Scholar
• Çelik D, Çoban Ö. Short Form Health Survey version-2.0 Turkish (SF-36v2) is an efficient outcome parameter in musculoskeletal research. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50:558–561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, et al. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:176.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, et al. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:730–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM. Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1137–1141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): building an argument for validity. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1695–1710.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins M, Cheng C, Elsworth GR, et al. Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks ME, Dalal DK, Nolan KP. Are common language effect sizes easier to understand than traditional effect sizes? J Appl Psychol. 2014;99:332–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çelik D. Turkish version of the modified Constant-Murley score and standardized test protocol: reliability and validity. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50:69–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuğay U, Tuğay N, Gelecek N, et al. Oxford Shoulder Score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(5):687–694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Düger T, Yakut E, Öksüz Ç, et al. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon. 2006;17(3):99–107.
   Google Scholar
• van de Water AT, Shields N, Davidson M, et al. Reliability and validity of shoulder function outcome measures in people with a proximal humeral fracture. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1072–1079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook KF, Roddey TS, Olson SL, et al. Reliability by surgical status of self-reported outcomes in patients who have shoulder pathologies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2002;32:336–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gartsman GM, Brinker MR, Khan M. Early effectiveness of arthroscopic repair for full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff: an outcome analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:33–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romeo AA, Mazzocca A, Hang DW, et al. Shoulder scoring scales for the evaluation of rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;427:107–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar