The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Self-Administered Questionnaire for Assessment of Symptoms and Function of the Shoulder*
Abstract
A self-administered questionnaire was designed to assess the severity of symptoms related to and the functional status of the shoulder. It includes domains of global assessment, pain, daily activities, recreational and athletic activities, work, satisfaction, and areas for improvement. Each domain is graded separately and is weighted to arrive at the total score. The over-all scale and each domain were prospectively tested for validity, reliability, and responsiveness to clinical change. One hundred patients who were seen for evaluation of the shoulder were enrolled in the study. The validity of the scale was demonstrated by moderate-to-high correlation of the domains and individual questions of the Shoulder Rating Questionnaire with those of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2. Validity was supported further by significant correlation of the scores in each domain with the level of satisfaction in that domain and by significantly lower scores in domains that patients selected as areas important for improvement. The over-all scale and each domain were internally consistent (Cronbach alpha, 0.71 to 0.90). Reproducibility was evaluated by repeated administration of the questionnaire after a mean of three days to forty patients whose condition was clinically stable. Reproducibility of the over-all questionnaire and individual domains was excellent (Spearman-Brown index, 0.94 to 0.98). Individual questions were reproducible, with a weighted kappa value of more than 0.7 for each. Responsiveness was evaluated by comparison of the preoperative and postoperative scores of thirty patients who had a satisfactory result one year after an operation on the shoulder. The over-all Shoulder Rating Questionnaire and each domain were responsive to clinical change as demonstrated by favorable standardized response means (range, 1.1 to 1.9) and indices of responsiveness (range, 1.1 to 2.0). Similar analysis performed for individual diagnostic groups supported the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the questionnaire in each group. The self-administered shoulder questionnaire was found to be valid, reliable, and responsive to clinical change. These qualities should make it a useful instrument for the prospective assessment of the outcome of treatment of disorders related to the shoulder.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Levine, D. W., Simmons, B. P., Koris, M. J., Daltroy, L. H., Hohl, G. G., Fossel, A. H., & Katz, J. N. (1993) · The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/00004623-199311000-00002 · Cited by 1,923
Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments
Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5 · Cited by 1,880
A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function
Richards, R. R., An, K.-N., Bigliani, L. U., Friedman, R. J., Gartsman, G. M., Gristina, A. G., Iannotti, J. P., Mow, V. C., Sidles, J. A., & Zuckerman, J. D. (1994) · Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery · doi:10.1016/s1058-2746(09)80019-0 · Cited by 1,726
Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation
Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Larson, M. G. (1990) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008 · Cited by 914
The Reliability of Clinical Methods, Data and Judgments: (First of Two Parts)
Koran, L. M. (1975) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197509252931307 · Cited by 649
The Reliability of Clinical Methods, Data and Judgments: (Second of Two Parts)
Koran, L. M. (1975) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197510022931405 · Cited by 400
The outcomes movement—Will it get us where we want to go?
Epstein, A. M. (1990) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199007263230410 · Cited by 371
Muscle performance evaluation in orthopaedic practice.
Sapega, A. A. (1990) · The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/00004623-199072100-00023 · Cited by 311
Cited by
Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 · Cited by 10,764
Scoring Systems for the Functional Assessment of the Shoulder
Kirkley, A., Griffin, S., & Dainty, K. (2003) · Arthroscopy · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.10.030 · Cited by 504
Hirsch, C., Hirsch, M., John, M. T., & Bock, J. J. (2007) · Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie · doi:10.1007/s00056-007-0708-z · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- L'insalata, J. C., Warren, R. F., Cohen, S. B., Altchek, D. W., & Peterson, M. G. E.
- Venue
- The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume)
- Published
- 1997-05
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 738-748
- ISSN
- 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2148998164
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 4.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Self-Administered Questionnaire for Assessment of Symptoms and Function of the Shoulder*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2106/00004623-199705000-00014
- The paper
- L'insalata, J. C., Warren, R. F., Cohen, S. B., Altchek, D. W., & Peterson, M. G. E. (1997). A Self-Administered Questionnaire for Assessment of Symptoms and Function of the Shoulder*. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199705000-00014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.