The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Outcomes Instruments: Normative Values from the General Population
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The collection of population-based normative data is a necessary step in the process of standardization of eleven American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) musculoskeletal outcomes measures. These data serve as comparative normative scores with which to assess the effectiveness of treatment regimens in clinical practice settings and to study the clinical outcomes of treatment in musculoskeletal research. METHODS: With use of a panel mail methodology, self-reported data on the eleven AAOS musculoskeletal outcomes measures were collected from the general population of the United States. RESULTS: The overall response rate of 67.4% for the various surveys met study expectations. For the eleven measures, the range of the confidence intervals for the surveys was +/-1.6% to +/-2.3%, exceeding the +/-3% set a priori. With use of the Multitrait/Multi-Item Analysis Program, all of the scales within each of eleven measures exhibited high internal reliability as well as discriminant and convergent validity. Items within each of the scales contributed roughly equal proportions of information to the total scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: All eleven instruments met study expectations for providing reliable and valid normative data for use in clinical and research settings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The DASH questionnaire showed significant upper-limb disability in patients when compared with normative data.
“The DASH questionnaire showed significant upper-limb disability in patients when compared with normative data [30] (Table 4).”
From Symptom reduction and improved function in chronic CRPS type 1 after 12-week integrated, interdisciplinary therapy (2019) · cites this paper as [30]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 684
- Authors
- Hunsaker, F. G., Cioffi, D. A., Amadio, P. C., Wright, J. G., & Caughlin, B.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 208-215
- ISSN
- 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2125301687
- Cited by
- 684
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 34
- FWCI
- 7.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
- Keywords
- reference values, self-reported outcome measures, internal consistency, discriminant validity, convergent validity, scale reliability
- MeSH terms
- Data Collection, Humans, Orthopedics, Reference Values, Societies, Medical, United States, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Orthopedic Procedures
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