BACKGROUND: Runners experience a high proportion of overuse injuries, with extended recovery periods involving a gradual, progressive return to preinjury status. A running-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure does not exist, and a questionnaire assessing critical elements of runners' recovery processes may have excellent psychometric properties. OBJECTIVES: To develop a valid, reliable, and responsive evaluative PRO measure to assess longitudinal change in running ability after running-related injury (RRI) for clinical practice and research applications. METHODS: Self-identified runners and selected experts participated in an iterative, 6-step development process of the University of Wisconsin Running Injury and Recovery Index (UWRI) in this longitudinal clinical measurement study. Content-related validity was assessed using open comments. Reproducibility was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and standard error of measurement (SEM). An anchor-based construct validity assessment measured the association between the change in UWRI score and global rating of change (GROC). Responsiveness assessments included floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: The 9-item UWRI assesses running ability following an RRI, with the maximum score of 36 indicating a return to preinjury running ability. The UWRI demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .82), test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.93), and SEM (1.47 points). Change in UWRI score was moderately correlated with the GROC (r = 0.61; 95% confidence interval: 0.4, 0.76). Floor and ceiling effects were absent. Completion required 3 minutes 15 seconds. CONCLUSION: The UWRI is a reliable PRO measure and is responsive to changes in running function following an RRI, with minimal administrative burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2c. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):751-760. Epub 3 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8868.
BACKGROUND: Runners experience a high proportion of overuse injuries, with extended recovery periods involving a gradual, progressive return to preinjury status. A running-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure does not exist, and a questionnaire assessing critical elements of runners' recovery processes may have excellent psychometric properties. OBJECTIVES: To develop a valid, reliable, and responsive evaluative PRO measure to assess longitudinal change in running ability after running-related injury (RRI) for clinical practice and research applications. METHODS: Self-identified runners and selected experts participated in an iterative, 6-step development process of the University of Wisconsin Running Injury and Recovery Index (UWRI) in this longitudinal clinical measurement study. Content-related validity was assessed using open comments. Reproducibility was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and standard error of measurement (SEM). An anchor-based construct validity assessment measured the association between the change in UWRI score and global rating of change (GROC). Responsiveness assessments included floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: The 9-item UWRI assesses running ability following an RRI, with the maximum score of 36 indicating a return to preinjury running ability. The UWRI demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .82), test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.93), and SEM (1.47 points). Change in UWRI score was moderately correlated with the GROC (r = 0.61; 95% confidence interval: 0.4, 0.76). Floor and ceiling effects were absent. Completion required 3 minutes 15 seconds. CONCLUSION: The UWRI is a reliable PRO measure and is responsive to changes in running function following an RRI, with minimal administrative burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2c. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(10):751-760. Epub 3 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8868.
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: Mitchell J Rauh; Thomas D Koepsell; Frederick P Rivara; Anthony J Margherita; Stephen G Rice Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2005-11-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: B Kluitenberg; M van Middelkoop; D W Smits; E Verhagen; F Hartgens; R Diercks; H van der Worp Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 4.221
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: Benjamin Maschke; Allison Palmsten; Evan O Nelson; Michael C Obermeier; Megan Reams; Bryan Heiderscheit; Hayley Russell; Terese L Chmielewski Journal: Phys Ther Sport Date: 2021-12-27 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: A L Rahlf; T Hoenig; J Stürznickel; K Cremans; D Fohrmann; A Sanchez-Alvarado; T Rolvien; K Hollander Journal: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Date: 2022-04-26