Literature DB >> 9580892

The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction.

M D Westaway1, P W Stratford, J M Binkley.   

Abstract

Self-report measures of disability are being used more frequently to assess patients' outcomes in clinical practice. This study examines the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale when applied to persons with neck dysfunction. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale and Neck Disability Index were applied at the initial visit, within 72 hours of the initial visit, and following 1-4 weeks of treatment in 31 patients with cervical dysfunction. At the time of the initial visit, the clinician made an estimate of patients' prognoses on a five-point scale. This estimate served as an priori construct for change: patients with better ratings would change more. The results demonstrate excellent reliability (R = .92) validity (r = .73-.83 compared with the Neck Disability Index, and r = .52-.64 compared with the prognosis rating), and sensitivity of change (r = .79-.83 compared with Neck Disability Index change scores, and r = .46-.53 compared with the prognosis rating). No difference was found between the Patient-Specific Functional Scale and Neck Disability Index in their ability to detect change over time. The results of this study are consistent with previous investigations which have concluded that the Patient-Specific Functional Scale is an efficient and valid measure for assessing disability and change in disability in persons with low back pain and knee dysfunction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9580892     DOI: 10.2519/jospt.1998.27.5.331

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther        ISSN: 0190-6011            Impact factor:   4.751


  80 in total

Review 1.  [Activating physiotherapy for chronic pain in elderly patients. Recommendations, barriers and resources].

Authors:  K Kuss; M Laekeman
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.107

2.  The content and construct validity of the modified patient specific functional scale (PSFS 2.0) in individuals with neck pain.

Authors:  Marloes Thoomes-de Graaf; César Fernández-De-Las-Peñas; Joshua A Cleland
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2019-05-26

3.  A randomized clinical trial comparing non-thrust manipulation with segmental and distal dry needling on pain, disability, and rate of recovery for patients with non-specific low back pain.

Authors:  D Griswold; F Gargano; K E Learman
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2019-02-09

4.  Bony avulsion injury of the pectoralis major in a 19 year-old male judo athlete: a case report.

Authors:  Nathan P Shepard; Richard B Westrick; Brett D Owens; Michael R Johnson
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2013-12

5.  Treatment of hamstring strain in a collegiate pole-vaulter integrating dry needling with an eccentric training program: a resident's case report.

Authors:  Scott C Dembowski; Richard B Westrick; Edo Zylstra; Michael R Johnson
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2013-06

6.  In response to treatment of neck pain.

Authors:  Paul Dreyfuss; Ray Baker
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Multimodal management of mechanical neck pain using a treatment based classification system.

Authors:  Megan M Heintz; Eric J Hegedus
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008

8.  Subjective outcome assessments for cervical spine pathology: A narrative review.

Authors:  Diane N Resnick
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2005

9.  Clinimetrics corner: the Global Rating of Change Score (GRoC) poorly correlates with functional measures and is not temporally stable.

Authors:  Craig Garrison; Chad Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2012-11

10.  Evaluation of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in hand fractures and dislocations.

Authors:  Christine B Novak; Marianne M Williams; Kathleen Conaty
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2015-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.