Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 579

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire: Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness*

SWIONTKOWSKI, MARC F., ENGELBERG, RUTH, MARTIN, DIANE P., AGEL, JULIE·1999·The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery

Abstract

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 > or = 0.40]) and standard clinical measures (for example, grip strength and walking speed [r > or = 0.401). 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.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2106/00004623-199909000-00006

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
SWIONTKOWSKI, M. F., ENGELBERG, R., MARTIN, D. P., & AGEL, J.
Venue
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
Published
1999-09
Volume
81
Issue
9
Pages
1245-60
ISSN
0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W130646401
Cited by
579
References
7
FWCI
3.64
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

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.