Daniela Pereira Valentim1, Tatiana de Oliveira Sato2, Maria Luiza Caíres Comper3, Anderson Martins da Silva4, Cristiana Villas Boas5, Rosimeire Simprini Padula6. 1. Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 2. Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar), Departamento de Fisioterapia, São Carlos, SP, Brazil. 3. Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), São Paulo, SP, Brazil; União Metropolitana de Ensino e Cultura, Departamento de Fisioterapia, Itabuna, SP, Brazil. 4. Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), São Paulo, SP, Brazil; Faculdades Integradas do Vale do Ribeira, Faculdade de Fisioterapia, Registro, SP, Brazil. 5. Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), Departamento de Fisioterapia, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 6. Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), São Paulo, SP, Brazil; Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), Departamento de Fisioterapia, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: rosipadula@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are very few observational methods for analysis of biomechanical exposure available in Brazilian-Portuguese. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt and test the measurement properties of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) and Strain Index (SI). METHODS: The cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties test were established according to Beaton et al. and COSMIN guidelines, respectively. Several tasks that required static posture and/or repetitive motion of upper limbs were evaluated (n>100). RESULTS: The intra-raters' reliability for the RULA ranged from poor to almost perfect (k: 0.00-0.93), and SI from poor to excellent (ICC2.1: 0.05-0.99). The inter-raters' reliability was very poor for RULA (k: -0.12 to 0.13) and ranged from very poor to moderate for SI (ICC2.1: 0.00-0.53). The agreement was good for RULA (75-100% intra-raters, and 42.24-100% inter-raters) and to SI (EPM: -1.03% to 1.97%; intra-raters, and -0.17% to 1.51% inter-raters). The internal consistency was appropriate for RULA (α=0.88), and low for SI (α=0.65). Moderate construct validity were observed between RULA and SI, in wrist/hand-wrist posture (rho: 0.61) and strength/intensity of exertion (rho: 0.39). CONCLUSION: The adapted versions of the RULA and SI presented semantic and cultural equivalence for the Brazilian Portuguese. The RULA and SI had reliability estimates ranged from very poor to almost perfect. The internal consistency for RULA was better than the SI. The correlation between methods was moderate only of muscle request/movement repetition. Previous training is mandatory to use of observations methods for biomechanical exposure assessment, although it does not guarantee good reproducibility of these measures.
BACKGROUND: There are very few observational methods for analysis of biomechanical exposure available in Brazilian-Portuguese. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt and test the measurement properties of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) and Strain Index (SI). METHODS: The cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties test were established according to Beaton et al. and COSMIN guidelines, respectively. Several tasks that required static posture and/or repetitive motion of upper limbs were evaluated (n>100). RESULTS: The intra-raters' reliability for the RULA ranged from poor to almost perfect (k: 0.00-0.93), and SI from poor to excellent (ICC2.1: 0.05-0.99). The inter-raters' reliability was very poor for RULA (k: -0.12 to 0.13) and ranged from very poor to moderate for SI (ICC2.1: 0.00-0.53). The agreement was good for RULA (75-100% intra-raters, and 42.24-100% inter-raters) and to SI (EPM: -1.03% to 1.97%; intra-raters, and -0.17% to 1.51% inter-raters). The internal consistency was appropriate for RULA (α=0.88), and low for SI (α=0.65). Moderate construct validity were observed between RULA and SI, in wrist/hand-wrist posture (rho: 0.61) and strength/intensity of exertion (rho: 0.39). CONCLUSION: The adapted versions of the RULA and SI presented semantic and cultural equivalence for the Brazilian Portuguese. The RULA and SI had reliability estimates ranged from very poor to almost perfect. The internal consistency for RULA was better than the SI. The correlation between methods was moderate only of muscle request/movement repetition. Previous training is mandatory to use of observations methods for biomechanical exposure assessment, although it does not guarantee good reproducibility of these measures.
Authors: Phillip Drinkaus; Richard Sesek; Donald Bloswick; Tom Bernard; Bob Walton; Brad Joseph; Gordon Reeve; Joyce Hall Counts Journal: Work Date: 2003
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Lidwine B Mokkink; Dirk L Knol; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Cecilia A C Prinsen; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Natália Claro da Silva; Flávia Pessoni Faleiros Macedo Ricci; Vinícius Restani de Castro; Alessandra Cristina Ramos de Lima; Ester R do Carmo Lopes; Leonardo Dutra de Salvo Mauad; Karen A Kawano Suzuki; Maria Eloísa de Oliveira Medeiros; Joyce Silva de Santana; Fernanda Ludmilla Rossi Rocha; Marisa de Cássia Registro Fonseca Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Preston Riley Graben; Mark C Schall; Sean Gallagher; Richard Sesek; Yadrianna Acosta-Sojo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.614