The Experts below are selected from a list of 16986 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marc F Swiontkowski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
use of both short Musculoskeletal Function assessment questionnaire and short form 36 among tibial fracture patients was redundant
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009Co-Authors: Jason W Busse, Marc F Swiontkowski, Mohit Bhandari, Gordon H Guyatt, Diane Heelsansdell, Scott Mandel, David Sanders, Emil H Schemitsch, Paul Tornetta, Eugene WaiAbstract:Abstract Objective To compare the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment DysFunction Index (SMFA DI) and the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) scores among patients undergoing operative management of tibial fractures. Study Design and Setting Between July 2000 and September 2005, we enrolled 1,319 skeletally mature patients with open or closed fractures of the tibial shaft that were managed with intramedullary nailing. Patients were asked to complete the SMFA Questionnaire and SF-36 at discharge and 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. Results The SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were highly correlated at 3, 6, and 12 months post–surgical fixation. The difference in the mean standardized change scores for SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS, from 3 to 12 months post–surgical fixation, was not statistically significant. Both the SMFA DI and SF-36 PCS scores were able to discriminate between healed and nonhealed tibial fractures at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery. Conclusion In patients with tibial-shaft fractures, the SMFA DI offered no significant advantages over the SF-36 PCS score. These results, along with the usefulness of SF-36 for comparing populations, recommend the SF-36 for assessing physical Function in studies of patients with tibial fractures.
-
current utilization interpretation and recommendations the Musculoskeletal Function assessments mfa smfa
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 2007Co-Authors: David P Barei, Julie Agel, Marc F SwiontkowskiAbstract:The development of patient-oriented health status measurements has resulted in the emergence of several generic condition-specific and anatomic-specific instruments. These instruments are generally designed to measure the Function of the individual as a whole from the individual's own point of view. They are not intended to replace traditional physician-oriented clinical outcome measures, such as complication rates, ranges of motion, or time to fracture union; instead, they are an attempt to measure the results of a treatment or condition from the patient's perspective. Over the past decade, the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) instrument has been developed and used as one of the primary generic Musculoskeletal Functional assessment tools, in part because of its validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Despite the numerous publications reporting the MFA/SMFA, we are unaware of any publications that have used those results to subsequently affect patient care. We hope that this special interest article highlights the current underutilization of the available data and encourages the orthopedic community to maximize the clinical and research potential of the MFA/SMFA (Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment).
-
administration of the short Musculoskeletal Function assessment impact on office routine and physician patient interaction
Orthopedics, 2003Co-Authors: Julie Agel, William Obremsky, Philip J Kregor, Jonathan Keeve, Paul Abbott, Daniel Buss, Marc F SwiontkowskiAbstract:Outcome instrument use is becoming widespread. They must fit smoothly into the office flow and show the physician and patient value. Five practices incorporated the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA) into their office. Existing staff scored the SMFA. At the conclusion of the visit, the patient and physician assessed the impact of the SMFA on their interaction. Five hundred ten patients completed the SMFA. Physicians believed the verbal interaction had some effect with their patients 44% of the time. Physicians reported the SMFA had some effect on their management decisions 36% of the time. Physicians reported that the total score was helpful 43% of the time and the category scores were helpful 65% of the time. On completing the SMFA, patients reported no effect on their physician interaction 74% of the time and 88% believed it was worthwhile to complete. This validated Musculoskeletal questionnaire adds value to the physician-patient interaction in approximately 30%-40% of encounters.
-
short Musculoskeletal Function assessment questionnaire validity reliability and responsiveness
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, 1999Co-Authors: Marc F Swiontkowski, Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie AgelAbstract:Background: A short questionnaire on Functional status was designed for use in community-based outcome studies and in the management of individual patients who have Musculoskeletal disease. As most Musculoskeletal care is delivered in community practices, short, validated instruments are necessary to perform clinical studies on the effectiveness of treatment in this setting. Methods: A forty-six-item questionnaire was created as an extension of the work to develop the longer, 101-item Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) questionnaire. The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) questionnaire consists of the dysFunction index, which has thirty-four items for the assessment of patient Function, and the bother index, which has twelve items for the assessment of how much patients are bothered by Functional problems. The SMFA questionnaire was evaluated for reliability, validity, and responsiveness in a population of 420 patients who had a Musculoskeletal disease or injury. Results: The SMFA questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal consistency and stability, with most values greater than 0.90. Content validity for the dysFunction and bother indexes was supported with very little skew (less than 1.00), few ceiling effects (less than 5 percent), and no floor effects. Convergent validity was supported with significant correlations between the SMFA dysFunction and bother indexes and the physicians' ratings of patient Function (for example, activities of daily living, recreational and leisure activities, and emotional Function [rho ≥ 0.40]) and standard clinical measures (for example, grip strength and walking speed [r ≥ 0.40]). Convergent and discriminant construct validity of the SMFA indexes were demonstrated (p < 0.01) in comparisons with clinical, demographic, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and life-change data. The responsiveness of the SMFA questionnaire to change over time was demonstrated with standardized response means ranging from moderate (0.76) to large (-1.14) for patients who had changes in health status. Conclusions: The SMFA questionnaire may be used for clinical assessments of the impact of treatment in groups of patients who have Musculoskeletal disease or injury. It also may be used in clinical settings to provide reliable and valid assessments of the health status of an individual patient.
-
Musculoskeletal Function assessment reference values for patient and non patient samples
Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 1999Co-Authors: Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie Agel, Marc F Swiontkowski, James WrightAbstract:Although researchers and clinicians are encouraged to use health-status questionnaires to evaluate, monitor, and modify care, their use is hindered by the lack of reference values. Without reference values, it is difficult to interpret or evaluate questionnaire scores. In this paper, we present reference values for the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, a 101-item health-status questionnaire designed and validated for patients with a broad range of Musculoskeletal disorders. We describe reference values for two samples: non-patients (n = 123) and patients with isolated extremity injuries (n = 274). For the non-patient sample, descriptive statistics are presented by age and gender, measured at one point in time. For the patient sample, descriptive statistics are provided for seven Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO diagnostic groups, measured at two points in time. Reference values for changes in the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment total score are described for patients 3 and 9 months and 6 and 12 months after injury. The total scores by post-injury interval, across the diagnostic groups, are significantly better at follow-up than at baseline (p = 0.00). Reference values for changes in total scores are also described in terms of these diagnostic groups across post-injury intervals. Musculoskeletal Function Assessment total scores for Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO diagnostic groups are significantly better at follow-up than at baseline (p < 0.03). Changes in the total score are also tested for responsiveness with use of standardized response means. Large effects are demonstrated for patients completing the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment at 3 and 9 months (1.03), and small effects are demonstrated for those completing it at 6 and 12 months (0.49). Moderate and large effects are demonstrated for Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO diagnostic groups across post-injury intervals.
Julie Agel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Musculoskeletal Function assessment outcomes scores over time for tibial plafond ota ao 43 and proximal humeral ota ao 11 fractures a pilot project
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 2015Co-Authors: Douglas W Lundy, Julie Agel, Lawrence J Marsh, Debra L Sietsema, Clifford B Jones, Andrew R Evans, James F KellamAbstract:Objectives: What is the return to Function after an isolated proximal humerus or tibial plafond fracture? Design: Prospective observational. Setting: Orthopaedic outpatient clinics. Patients/Participants: Consecutive patients were enrolled with isolated proximal humerus (N = 155) and tibial plafond fractures (N = 120). Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measurements: Musculoskeletal Function Assessment. Results: Patients who sustained isolated proximal humerus or tibial plafond fractures showed gradual improvement over 1 year. Women consistently demonstrated greater dysFunction than men at 6, 9, and 12 months after tibial plafond fracture. Age had an impact on return to Function after injury for both fractures. Younger patients (18–29 years) with either type of injury tended to have better scores compared with the older patients. Conclusions: Detailed analysis of this data demonstrates variation in patient-based outcomes during recovery from a proximal humerus or tibial plafond fracture. These data need to be reviewed in the context of the individual patient when following a patient's recovery. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
-
Musculoskeletal Function assessment instrument criterion and construct validity
Orthopedic Trauma Directions, 2009Co-Authors: Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie AgelAbstract:The Musculoskeletal Function assessment (MFA) instrument is a 100-item, self-reported, health status measure designed for use in a clinical setting on a broad range of patients with Musculoskeletal disorders of the extremities. This study sought to test both its criterion and construct validity, an important aspect of creating a health status instrument. The criterion validity was tested against physicians’ ratings of patient Function and against various clinical measures. Construct validity was evaluated using medical records, demographic data, other standard health instruments, and by comparing patients based on their various health issues. Both types of validity were affirmed by significant correlations between the MFA scores and the criteria evaluated.
-
current utilization interpretation and recommendations the Musculoskeletal Function assessments mfa smfa
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 2007Co-Authors: David P Barei, Julie Agel, Marc F SwiontkowskiAbstract:The development of patient-oriented health status measurements has resulted in the emergence of several generic condition-specific and anatomic-specific instruments. These instruments are generally designed to measure the Function of the individual as a whole from the individual's own point of view. They are not intended to replace traditional physician-oriented clinical outcome measures, such as complication rates, ranges of motion, or time to fracture union; instead, they are an attempt to measure the results of a treatment or condition from the patient's perspective. Over the past decade, the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) instrument has been developed and used as one of the primary generic Musculoskeletal Functional assessment tools, in part because of its validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Despite the numerous publications reporting the MFA/SMFA, we are unaware of any publications that have used those results to subsequently affect patient care. We hope that this special interest article highlights the current underutilization of the available data and encourages the orthopedic community to maximize the clinical and research potential of the MFA/SMFA (Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment).
-
administration of the short Musculoskeletal Function assessment impact on office routine and physician patient interaction
Orthopedics, 2003Co-Authors: Julie Agel, William Obremsky, Philip J Kregor, Jonathan Keeve, Paul Abbott, Daniel Buss, Marc F SwiontkowskiAbstract:Outcome instrument use is becoming widespread. They must fit smoothly into the office flow and show the physician and patient value. Five practices incorporated the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA) into their office. Existing staff scored the SMFA. At the conclusion of the visit, the patient and physician assessed the impact of the SMFA on their interaction. Five hundred ten patients completed the SMFA. Physicians believed the verbal interaction had some effect with their patients 44% of the time. Physicians reported the SMFA had some effect on their management decisions 36% of the time. Physicians reported that the total score was helpful 43% of the time and the category scores were helpful 65% of the time. On completing the SMFA, patients reported no effect on their physician interaction 74% of the time and 88% believed it was worthwhile to complete. This validated Musculoskeletal questionnaire adds value to the physician-patient interaction in approximately 30%-40% of encounters.
-
short Musculoskeletal Function assessment questionnaire validity reliability and responsiveness
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, 1999Co-Authors: Marc F Swiontkowski, Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie AgelAbstract:Background: A short questionnaire on Functional status was designed for use in community-based outcome studies and in the management of individual patients who have Musculoskeletal disease. As most Musculoskeletal care is delivered in community practices, short, validated instruments are necessary to perform clinical studies on the effectiveness of treatment in this setting. Methods: A forty-six-item questionnaire was created as an extension of the work to develop the longer, 101-item Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) questionnaire. The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) questionnaire consists of the dysFunction index, which has thirty-four items for the assessment of patient Function, and the bother index, which has twelve items for the assessment of how much patients are bothered by Functional problems. The SMFA questionnaire was evaluated for reliability, validity, and responsiveness in a population of 420 patients who had a Musculoskeletal disease or injury. Results: The SMFA questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal consistency and stability, with most values greater than 0.90. Content validity for the dysFunction and bother indexes was supported with very little skew (less than 1.00), few ceiling effects (less than 5 percent), and no floor effects. Convergent validity was supported with significant correlations between the SMFA dysFunction and bother indexes and the physicians' ratings of patient Function (for example, activities of daily living, recreational and leisure activities, and emotional Function [rho ≥ 0.40]) and standard clinical measures (for example, grip strength and walking speed [r ≥ 0.40]). Convergent and discriminant construct validity of the SMFA indexes were demonstrated (p < 0.01) in comparisons with clinical, demographic, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and life-change data. The responsiveness of the SMFA questionnaire to change over time was demonstrated with standardized response means ranging from moderate (0.76) to large (-1.14) for patients who had changes in health status. Conclusions: The SMFA questionnaire may be used for clinical assessments of the impact of treatment in groups of patients who have Musculoskeletal disease or injury. It also may be used in clinical settings to provide reliable and valid assessments of the health status of an individual patient.
Ruth A Engelberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Musculoskeletal Function assessment instrument criterion and construct validity
Orthopedic Trauma Directions, 2009Co-Authors: Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie AgelAbstract:The Musculoskeletal Function assessment (MFA) instrument is a 100-item, self-reported, health status measure designed for use in a clinical setting on a broad range of patients with Musculoskeletal disorders of the extremities. This study sought to test both its criterion and construct validity, an important aspect of creating a health status instrument. The criterion validity was tested against physicians’ ratings of patient Function and against various clinical measures. Construct validity was evaluated using medical records, demographic data, other standard health instruments, and by comparing patients based on their various health issues. Both types of validity were affirmed by significant correlations between the MFA scores and the criteria evaluated.
-
short Musculoskeletal Function assessment questionnaire validity reliability and responsiveness
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, 1999Co-Authors: Marc F Swiontkowski, Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie AgelAbstract:Background: A short questionnaire on Functional status was designed for use in community-based outcome studies and in the management of individual patients who have Musculoskeletal disease. As most Musculoskeletal care is delivered in community practices, short, validated instruments are necessary to perform clinical studies on the effectiveness of treatment in this setting. Methods: A forty-six-item questionnaire was created as an extension of the work to develop the longer, 101-item Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) questionnaire. The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) questionnaire consists of the dysFunction index, which has thirty-four items for the assessment of patient Function, and the bother index, which has twelve items for the assessment of how much patients are bothered by Functional problems. The SMFA questionnaire was evaluated for reliability, validity, and responsiveness in a population of 420 patients who had a Musculoskeletal disease or injury. Results: The SMFA questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal consistency and stability, with most values greater than 0.90. Content validity for the dysFunction and bother indexes was supported with very little skew (less than 1.00), few ceiling effects (less than 5 percent), and no floor effects. Convergent validity was supported with significant correlations between the SMFA dysFunction and bother indexes and the physicians' ratings of patient Function (for example, activities of daily living, recreational and leisure activities, and emotional Function [rho ≥ 0.40]) and standard clinical measures (for example, grip strength and walking speed [r ≥ 0.40]). Convergent and discriminant construct validity of the SMFA indexes were demonstrated (p < 0.01) in comparisons with clinical, demographic, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and life-change data. The responsiveness of the SMFA questionnaire to change over time was demonstrated with standardized response means ranging from moderate (0.76) to large (-1.14) for patients who had changes in health status. Conclusions: The SMFA questionnaire may be used for clinical assessments of the impact of treatment in groups of patients who have Musculoskeletal disease or injury. It also may be used in clinical settings to provide reliable and valid assessments of the health status of an individual patient.
-
Musculoskeletal Function assessment reference values for patient and non patient samples
Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 1999Co-Authors: Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie Agel, Marc F Swiontkowski, James WrightAbstract:Although researchers and clinicians are encouraged to use health-status questionnaires to evaluate, monitor, and modify care, their use is hindered by the lack of reference values. Without reference values, it is difficult to interpret or evaluate questionnaire scores. In this paper, we present reference values for the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, a 101-item health-status questionnaire designed and validated for patients with a broad range of Musculoskeletal disorders. We describe reference values for two samples: non-patients (n = 123) and patients with isolated extremity injuries (n = 274). For the non-patient sample, descriptive statistics are presented by age and gender, measured at one point in time. For the patient sample, descriptive statistics are provided for seven Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO diagnostic groups, measured at two points in time. Reference values for changes in the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment total score are described for patients 3 and 9 months and 6 and 12 months after injury. The total scores by post-injury interval, across the diagnostic groups, are significantly better at follow-up than at baseline (p = 0.00). Reference values for changes in total scores are also described in terms of these diagnostic groups across post-injury intervals. Musculoskeletal Function Assessment total scores for Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO diagnostic groups are significantly better at follow-up than at baseline (p < 0.03). Changes in the total score are also tested for responsiveness with use of standardized response means. Large effects are demonstrated for patients completing the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment at 3 and 9 months (1.03), and small effects are demonstrated for those completing it at 6 and 12 months (0.49). Moderate and large effects are demonstrated for Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO diagnostic groups across post-injury intervals.
-
comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function assessment questionnaire with the short form 36 the western ontario and mcmaster universities osteoarthritis index and the sickness impact profile health status measures
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, 1997Co-Authors: Diane P Martin, Ruth A Engelberg, Julie Agel, Marc F SwiontkowskiAbstract:We compared the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) questionnaire with those of three commonly used health-status measures: the Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). The MFA, like the other health-status measures, demonstrated good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients of more than 0.70), good sensitivity and specificity (more than 70 per cent), good criterion validity that correlated with physicians' ratings (p < 0.01), and good construct validity that correlated with the characteristics of the patients (p < 0.01). It also demonstrated better content validity than the other questionnaires, with no ceiling or floor effects for the total score. In addition, it was more responsive than the SF-36; for eight of the eleven comparisons, it was more efficient (relative efficiency of more than 2.00) in measuring changes in Function between the baseline values and the values determined at the latest follow-up evaluation. These findings suggest that the MFA can be used to assess the health status of patients who have a Musculoskeletal disorder.
-
Musculoskeletal Function assessment instrument criterion and construct validity
Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 1996Co-Authors: Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie Agel, William Obremsky, Gloria D Coronado, Marc F SwiontkowskiAbstract:The Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) instrument, a health status instrument with 100 self-reported health items; was designed for use with the broad range of patients with Musculoskeletal disorders of the extremities commonly seen in clinical practice. In this paper, we report on its criterion and construct validity. Criterion validity was tested against physicians' ratings of patient Functioning (e.g., upper Functioning, lower Functioning, daily activities, recreational Functioning, emotional adjustment, and overall Functioning) and standard clinical measures (e.g., grip strength, walking speed, fine motor skills, knee and elbow strength, and range of motion). Significant correlations (p ⩽ 0.05) between its scores, physicians' ratings, and clinical measures support the MFA's criterion validity. Construct validity was demonstrated against existing measures of health status (e.g., measures of lower and upper mobility, activity level and satisfaction, health status, social support, pain, emotional status, and quality of life), in accordance with clinical hypotheses about the effect of musculokeletal disorders on Functioning (e.g., type and number of problems, severity of illness or injury, and comorbidites) and by an analysis of demographic characteristics (e.g., sex, education, income, health insurance, and employment) against the MFA scores. Discriminant construct validity was supported in an analysis of MFA scores by patient disease groups (p ⩽ 0.01).
Diane P Martin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Musculoskeletal Function assessment instrument criterion and construct validity
Orthopedic Trauma Directions, 2009Co-Authors: Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie AgelAbstract:The Musculoskeletal Function assessment (MFA) instrument is a 100-item, self-reported, health status measure designed for use in a clinical setting on a broad range of patients with Musculoskeletal disorders of the extremities. This study sought to test both its criterion and construct validity, an important aspect of creating a health status instrument. The criterion validity was tested against physicians’ ratings of patient Function and against various clinical measures. Construct validity was evaluated using medical records, demographic data, other standard health instruments, and by comparing patients based on their various health issues. Both types of validity were affirmed by significant correlations between the MFA scores and the criteria evaluated.
-
short Musculoskeletal Function assessment questionnaire validity reliability and responsiveness
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, 1999Co-Authors: Marc F Swiontkowski, Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie AgelAbstract:Background: A short questionnaire on Functional status was designed for use in community-based outcome studies and in the management of individual patients who have Musculoskeletal disease. As most Musculoskeletal care is delivered in community practices, short, validated instruments are necessary to perform clinical studies on the effectiveness of treatment in this setting. Methods: A forty-six-item questionnaire was created as an extension of the work to develop the longer, 101-item Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) questionnaire. The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) questionnaire consists of the dysFunction index, which has thirty-four items for the assessment of patient Function, and the bother index, which has twelve items for the assessment of how much patients are bothered by Functional problems. The SMFA questionnaire was evaluated for reliability, validity, and responsiveness in a population of 420 patients who had a Musculoskeletal disease or injury. Results: The SMFA questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal consistency and stability, with most values greater than 0.90. Content validity for the dysFunction and bother indexes was supported with very little skew (less than 1.00), few ceiling effects (less than 5 percent), and no floor effects. Convergent validity was supported with significant correlations between the SMFA dysFunction and bother indexes and the physicians' ratings of patient Function (for example, activities of daily living, recreational and leisure activities, and emotional Function [rho ≥ 0.40]) and standard clinical measures (for example, grip strength and walking speed [r ≥ 0.40]). Convergent and discriminant construct validity of the SMFA indexes were demonstrated (p < 0.01) in comparisons with clinical, demographic, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and life-change data. The responsiveness of the SMFA questionnaire to change over time was demonstrated with standardized response means ranging from moderate (0.76) to large (-1.14) for patients who had changes in health status. Conclusions: The SMFA questionnaire may be used for clinical assessments of the impact of treatment in groups of patients who have Musculoskeletal disease or injury. It also may be used in clinical settings to provide reliable and valid assessments of the health status of an individual patient.
-
Musculoskeletal Function assessment reference values for patient and non patient samples
Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 1999Co-Authors: Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie Agel, Marc F Swiontkowski, James WrightAbstract:Although researchers and clinicians are encouraged to use health-status questionnaires to evaluate, monitor, and modify care, their use is hindered by the lack of reference values. Without reference values, it is difficult to interpret or evaluate questionnaire scores. In this paper, we present reference values for the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, a 101-item health-status questionnaire designed and validated for patients with a broad range of Musculoskeletal disorders. We describe reference values for two samples: non-patients (n = 123) and patients with isolated extremity injuries (n = 274). For the non-patient sample, descriptive statistics are presented by age and gender, measured at one point in time. For the patient sample, descriptive statistics are provided for seven Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO diagnostic groups, measured at two points in time. Reference values for changes in the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment total score are described for patients 3 and 9 months and 6 and 12 months after injury. The total scores by post-injury interval, across the diagnostic groups, are significantly better at follow-up than at baseline (p = 0.00). Reference values for changes in total scores are also described in terms of these diagnostic groups across post-injury intervals. Musculoskeletal Function Assessment total scores for Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO diagnostic groups are significantly better at follow-up than at baseline (p < 0.03). Changes in the total score are also tested for responsiveness with use of standardized response means. Large effects are demonstrated for patients completing the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment at 3 and 9 months (1.03), and small effects are demonstrated for those completing it at 6 and 12 months (0.49). Moderate and large effects are demonstrated for Orthopaedic Trauma Association/AO diagnostic groups across post-injury intervals.
-
comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function assessment questionnaire with the short form 36 the western ontario and mcmaster universities osteoarthritis index and the sickness impact profile health status measures
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, 1997Co-Authors: Diane P Martin, Ruth A Engelberg, Julie Agel, Marc F SwiontkowskiAbstract:We compared the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) questionnaire with those of three commonly used health-status measures: the Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). The MFA, like the other health-status measures, demonstrated good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients of more than 0.70), good sensitivity and specificity (more than 70 per cent), good criterion validity that correlated with physicians' ratings (p < 0.01), and good construct validity that correlated with the characteristics of the patients (p < 0.01). It also demonstrated better content validity than the other questionnaires, with no ceiling or floor effects for the total score. In addition, it was more responsive than the SF-36; for eight of the eleven comparisons, it was more efficient (relative efficiency of more than 2.00) in measuring changes in Function between the baseline values and the values determined at the latest follow-up evaluation. These findings suggest that the MFA can be used to assess the health status of patients who have a Musculoskeletal disorder.
-
Musculoskeletal Function assessment instrument criterion and construct validity
Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 1996Co-Authors: Ruth A Engelberg, Diane P Martin, Julie Agel, William Obremsky, Gloria D Coronado, Marc F SwiontkowskiAbstract:The Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) instrument, a health status instrument with 100 self-reported health items; was designed for use with the broad range of patients with Musculoskeletal disorders of the extremities commonly seen in clinical practice. In this paper, we report on its criterion and construct validity. Criterion validity was tested against physicians' ratings of patient Functioning (e.g., upper Functioning, lower Functioning, daily activities, recreational Functioning, emotional adjustment, and overall Functioning) and standard clinical measures (e.g., grip strength, walking speed, fine motor skills, knee and elbow strength, and range of motion). Significant correlations (p ⩽ 0.05) between its scores, physicians' ratings, and clinical measures support the MFA's criterion validity. Construct validity was demonstrated against existing measures of health status (e.g., measures of lower and upper mobility, activity level and satisfaction, health status, social support, pain, emotional status, and quality of life), in accordance with clinical hypotheses about the effect of musculokeletal disorders on Functioning (e.g., type and number of problems, severity of illness or injury, and comorbidites) and by an analysis of demographic characteristics (e.g., sex, education, income, health insurance, and employment) against the MFA scores. Discriminant construct validity was supported in an analysis of MFA scores by patient disease groups (p ⩽ 0.01).
M. El Moumni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the short Musculoskeletal Function assessment a study of the reliability construct validity and responsiveness in patients sustaining trauma
Clinical Rehabilitation, 2019Co-Authors: Max W De Graaf, Erik Heineman, Inge H. F. Reininga, K Wendt, M. El MoumniAbstract:Objective:To assess test–retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the Dutch Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA-NL) in patients who sustained acute physical trauma.D...
-
Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: normative data of the Dutch population
Quality of Life Research, 2015Co-Authors: M. W. De Graaf, M. El Moumni, Klaus W Wendt, Erik Heineman, Inge H. F. ReiningaAbstract:Background The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) is widely used in both research and clinical practice. Despite its frequent use, normative data of the SMFA have remained limited. Aim of this study was to gather normative data for the Dutch SMFA (SMFA-NL).
-
cross cultural adaptation of the dutch short Musculoskeletal Function assessment questionnaire smfa nl internal consistency validity repeatability and responsiveness
Injury-international Journal of The Care of The Injured, 2012Co-Authors: Inge H. F. Reininga, M. El Moumni, K Wendt, Sjoerd K Bulstra, Maurits G L Olthof, Martin StevensAbstract:A B S T R A C T The purpose of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the Dutch version of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire (SMFA-NL) and to investigate the internal consistency, validity, repeatability and responsiveness of the translated version. The original SMFA was first translated and culturally adapted from English into Dutch according to a standardised procedure and subsequently tested for clinimetric quality. The study population consisted of 162 patients treated for various Musculoskeletal injuries or disorders at the departments of Orthopedics and Traumatology. All respondents filled in the SMFA-NL and the SF-36 and a region-specific questionnaire. To determine repeatability, 87 respondents filled in the SMFA-NL for a second time after a time interval of three to four weeks. To determine responsiveness, 29 respondents who were treated for their injury within three months before the first assessment filled in the SMFA-NL for a second time after two to three months. The following analyses were performed to evaluate clinimetric quality of the SMFANL: factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency), floor and ceiling effects, Spearman’s Rho (construct validity), intraclass correlation coefficients and the Bland & Altman method (repeatability), and standardised response means (SRM) (responsiveness). Factor analysis demonstrated four subscales of the SMFA-NL. Both the newly identified subscales of the SMFA-NL and the conventional subscales of the SMFA showed good internal consistency. No floor and some ceiling effects were found. Construct validity was good, as high correlations were found between the subscales of the SMFA-NL and the respective subscales of the SF-36 and the region-specific questionnaires. Repeatability of the SMFA-NL subscales was high, with no systematic bias between first and second assessment. Responsiveness of the SMFA-NL was moderate, as small to moderate SRMs were found. We successfully translated and culturally adapted a Dutch version of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire (SFMA-NL). This study shows that the SMFA-NL is a valid, reliable and moderately responsive method for the assessment of Functional status of patients who have a broad range of Musculoskeletal disorders. Furthermore, it will allow for comparison between different patient groups as well as for cross-cultural comparisons.
