Open Access

Spanish version of SPADI (shoulder pain and disability index) in musculoskeletal shoulder pain: a new 10-items version after confirmatory factor analysis

  • Alejandro Luque-Suarez1Email author,
  • Antonio Rondon-Ramos2,
  • Manuel Fernandez-Sanchez3,
  • Kathryn E. Roach4 and
  • Jose Miguel Morales-Asencio5
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201614:32

DOI: 10.1186/s12955-016-0436-4

Received: 22 October 2015

Accepted: 23 February 2016

Published: 1 March 2016

Abstract

Background

The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) is a tool designed to evaluate the impact of shoulder pathology. The aim of this study was to cross culturally adapt a Spanish version of the SPADI for Spanish population with a musculoskeletal shoulder pain, and to determine the psychometric properties of this instrument using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Methods

Cross-cultural adaptation was performed according to the international guidelines. To assess factor structure, a confirmatory factor analysis was done. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Item-total and inter-item correlations were assessed. Pearson and Spearman correlations were calculated to assess the convergent validity between SPADI and quick-DASH.

Results

A new Spanish version of SPADI was achieved. The original SPADI factor structure was tested by CFA, obtaining a poor fit: relative chi-square (χ2/df) 3.16, CFI 0.89, NFI 0.92, and RMSEA 0.10 (90 % CI 0.08 to 0.12). An additional model was tested, after deleting items which have had a poor adjustment in the model (1, 11, and 12), obtaining the best fit: relative chi-square (χ2/df) of 1.94, CFI 0.98, NFI 0.95, GFI 0,95, and RMSEA 0.06 (90 % CI 0.04 to 0.09). The analysis confirmed the bidimensional structure (pain and disability subscales). A correlation Spearman’s Rho coefficient of 0.752 (p < 0.0001) and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 were obtained.

Conclusions

This study validated a new 10-items version of SPADI for Spanish population with musculoskeletal shoulder pain providing a patient reported outcome measure that could be used in both clinical practice and research.

Keywords

Shoulder pain Diagnostic techniques and procedures

Background

Shoulder pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal conditions seen in primary care [1], after low back and neck pain. It affects one in three adults [2, 3], accounting 1 % of General Practice consultations in primary care [4]. In working-age populations, the prevalence of shoulder pain associated with musculoskeletal disorders is even higher [5], and increases with age [6].

Shoulder disorders are frequently accompanied by pain and restricted shoulder movement leading to difficulties in performing certain activities. Recent research suggests that shoulder pain not only affects function during work and leisure time activities, but also may interfere with psychological and social wellbeing [7]. Additionally, environmental factors, such as psychological distress, may contribute to the development of chronic shoulder problems [8].

A variety of musculoskeletal pathologies can cause shoulder pain including subacromial syndrome, frozen shoulder, rotator cuff tendonitis and tear, calcyfying tendonitis, biceps large portion tendonitis, and tear and gleno-humeral instability [9].

The impact of shoulder disorders can be assessed in different ways. Traditionally, the assessment has focused on the impairments associated with shoulder pathology by evaluating the range of motion, strength, or pain [10]. However, patients are more concerned with the activity limitations that result from these impairments. This has lead to an increasing emphasis on patient reported outcome (PRO) measures.

The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) is a PRO measure that was developed for use in an outpatient setting. It was designed to measure the impact of shoulder pathology in terms of pain and disability, for both current status, and change on status over time [11]. The SPADI is a self-administered questionnaire that consists of two dimensions, one for pain and the other for functional activities [11]. The pain dimension consists of five questions regarding the severity of an individual’s pain. Functional activities are assessed with eight questions. The SPADI takes 5 to 10 min for a patient to be completed. To answer the questions, subjects place a mark on a “0 to 10” numbered scale for each question. Verbal anchors for the pain dimension are ‘no pain at all’ and ‘worst pain imaginable’, and those for the functional activities are ‘no difficulty’ and ‘so difficult it required help’. The scores from both dimensions are averaged to produce a total score [11].

The SPADI has been used for measuring the outcomes in different studies and shoulder conditions, such as shoulder pain, various upper extremity diagnoses, various shoulder diagnoses, adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff, after shoulder arthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, various shoulder surgery, and in different populations and clinical settings, as orthopedic practice, outpatient physiotherapy and community volunteers [12].

The SPADI has been shown to be valid as a measure of pain and disability in community-based patients reporting shoulder pain due to musculoskeletal pathology. The SPADI has good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95 for the total score, 0.92 for the pain subscale and 0.93 for the disability subscale. The SPADI has also shown ability to detect change over time [13]. In comparing a number of shoulder specific questionnaires in primary care, the SPADI and SRQ (shoulder questionnaire rating) were found to be the most sensitive to detecting change and the SPADI required the least time to complete [14]. Another study reviewing the clinimetric properties of several shoulder questionnaires concluded that SPADI had good construct validity (>0.74) [15].

The increased number of international research projects as well as the diversity of populations and cultures living in a same region, has created the need to validate PRO measures in groups different from those originally used to develop the measure. This requires both translation into a new language and accommodation for differences in cultural characteristics [16].

To our knowledge, only one study has attempted to validate a Spanish language version of the SPADI and this study was conducted in women with shoulder pain following breast cancer surgery rather than shoulder pain due to musculoskeletal pathology [17]. Furthermore, no confirmatory factor analysis has been carried out for any of the multiple versions of SPADI. There is a need of constant update for any PRO measure to guarantee that the mentioned PRO retains all its psychometric properties and its equivalence between original and translated versions, as well as to evaluate its performance in other contexts [18]. This process should be carried out with robust methods, such as confirmatory factor analysis, to test the hypothesis of its original dimensionality. Moreover, the validity of a PRO need to be tested to assess whether its validity is dependent on the population in which the instrument was originally validated, as clinimetric properties many times depend on situational circumstances [18]. Therefore, additional testing in specific populations, i.e., musculoskeletal shoulder pain disorders, need to be carried out.

Hence, the aim of this study is twofold: 1) to translate and validate a Spanish version of the SPADI for Spanish population with a broad range of shoulder disorders and, 2) to determine the psychometric properties of this instrument, using confirmatory methods.

Methods

Patients and design

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Costa del Sol, March 2014, Spain. All participants in the study gave a written informed consent. Participants were recruited from six primary health care centres in the province of Malaga, Spain. Participants met the following inclusion criteria: i) shoulder pain, defined as “pain in the shoulder region brought on or exacerbated by movement at that shoulder”. ii) aged between 18 and 80 years, iii) first language was Spanish (Spain), iv) able to read written Spanish. Participants were excluded from the study if they did not have the capacity to comprehend the questionnaire due to cognitive or emotional impairment. Prior to conducting study, the authors obtained permission for the original author (Dr KE Roach), who was also involved in the study.

The study consisted of two phases

The study was conducted in two phases. The first was thehe cross-cultural adaptation of the SPADI and the second was the validation of the adapted SPADI. The cross-cultural adaptation process was undertaken using the guidelines and methodology recommended by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for the translation and validation of patients reported outcome measures [19]. The validation of the adapted SPADI was then undertaken by examining its psychometric properties and conducting a confirmatory factor analysis.

Cross-cultural adaptation

Cross-cultural adaptation involved eight stages: (1) forward translation, (2) reconciliation; (3) back translation, (4) back translation review, (5) harmonisation, (6) pilot testing/cognitive debriefing, (7) pilot testing review/review of cognitive debriefing results and (8) proofreading.

Forward translation

Two forward translations in Spanish were undertaken from the original English language version of the SPADI. The translations were undertaken by two independent health professionals who were native residents of Spain and fluent in both Spanish and English.

Forward translation reconciliation

The two forward translations were reconciled into one version (draft 1) by the two original translators, a third independent translator, and with additional input from the project lead.

Back translation

Two professional English native translators residing in Spain back translated the reconciled Spanish language version (draft 1) into English independently. The translators had neither prior knowledge of the SPADI nor of the original wording of the English version of the SPADI.

Back translation review

The principal investigator and a native Spanish speaker fluent in both languages reviewed the back translation for any discrepancies in meaning or terminology used. Any problematic item was discussed until the discrepancies were resolved. This process resulted in a refined second draft of the Spanish translation (draft 2).

Harmonisation

To produce the final Spanish language translation, a harmonisation meeting was undertaken involving three Spanish translators, the senior investigator and the developer of the original USA version of the SPADI. During this meeting, any discrepancies or issues that were highlighted from the back translation were discussed, the translated version of the SPADI was evaluated and a final version agreed.

Pilot testing/cognitive debriefing

Once the translation process was completed, the translation was formatted to match precisely the original American language version. The translated SPADI version was initially assessed for comprehensibility in five patient participants, who were Spanish residents and native speakers, met the inclusion criteria described above and had a low educational background without being illiterate. At this stage, each participant was asked by the in-country investigator to carry out the following tasks:
  • To complete a copy of the translated SPADI and time needed.

  • To comment on the response options within the back-translated SPADI.

  • To comment on any wording that was difficult to understand.

  • To suggest alternative wording/phrasing for any wording that was difficult to understand.

  • To describe in their own words what the wording meant to them. These responses were recorded verbatim and translated into English. The five patients’ responses were summarised by the senior investigator. This summary also contained any changes, recommendations or suggestions indicated by the participants and in-country investigators.

Pilot testing review/review of cognitive debriefing results

To improve the performance of the translated questionnaire, the pilot testing results were reviewed by the in-country investigators. At this stage, any item that caused comprehensibility difficulties for more of the 40 % of the participants was reviewed, and any modifications suggested by the respondent’s comments were incorporate to the final translated version.

Proof-reading

The senior investigator and a translator, who was not involved in the translation process previously, independently proofread the final formatted translation, and any suggested changes were discussed with the senior investigator. Furthermore, the Flesh Reading Ease test and the Flesh Kincaid Grade Level were calculated for readability [20].

Following this process, a final draft of the SPADI translated and culturally adapted into ‘Spanish for Spain’ was locked down and entered into the cross-cultural validation phase (final draft).

Validation phase

Before completing the questionnaire, the following data were recorded: age, sex, professional status, education level, affected shoulder and diagnosis. The questionnaires were administered by physical therapists working in the six different physical therapy rooms. They addressed any possible concern of the subjects. Items were numbered from 1 to 13. Items 1 to 5 were from pain subscale and items 6 to 13 were from disability subscale.

Sample size calculation

To test a two-factor model, assuming the null hypothesis of a mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) from 0.04 to 0.085, with an alpha value of 0.05, a statistical power of 0.8 and a maximum of 26 degrees of freedom, as suggested by MacCallum et al [21], sample of 196 subjects was required which was over-estimated by 10 % to cover possible losses. The calculations were performed with the Statistica 12 software [22].

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were carried out with means, standard deviations, and absolute and relative frequencies. Analysis of normality of distributions was evaluated by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, symmetry analysis and kurtosis. Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. A Cronbach’s alpha between 0.70 and 0.95 was considered “good” [23]. Moreover, item-total and inter-item correlations were assessed. Pearson and Spearman correlations were calculated to assess the convergent validity between SPADI and quick-DASH-Spanish version [24]. To assess factor structure, a confirmatory factor analysis was done, the evaluated model was fit with the following parameters: the penalizing function (chi square/ df), which is indicative of good fit with values less than 3; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and confidence intervals (CI 90 %), taking the value 0.05 as cut-off of good fit; Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) with a minimum value of good fit of 0.90. Multinormality was evaluated with the Mardia’s coefficient (multivariate curtosis), which could not be over “p” (p + 2), where “p” are the number of observed variables [25]. All the analyses were performed with SPSS 21 [26] and AMOS 21 [27].

Results

Traslation and cross-cultural adaptation process

Once a definitive back translation was obtained, the original author (Dr Kathryn Roach) reported some inconsistencies between the translated and original versions. To solve this issue, the expert committee was met, and new items were developed in the final Spanish version.

In the pilot testing phase, results showed no discrepancies in meaning or terminology used in the translated version of the SPADI. Hence, no modification of this version was done. Subjects did not request assistance in interpretating of the questionnaire or any of its items. The time needed to fill out the questionnaire was 4.61 min (SD 0.99). The result for Flesh Reading Ease test was 56.7, and 7.6 for the Flesh Kincaid Grade Level.

Validation phase

The final sample consisted of 219 participants, of which, 34.7 % were male and 65.2 % female, with a mean age of 55.08 (SD: 13.63). Characteristics of the sample and their clinical status are described in Table 1.
Table 1

Characteristics of participants

 

Female (n = 143)

Male (n = 76)

p

Age (years)

 

56.27 (SD 13.27)

52.75 (SD 14.10)

0.073

Professional status n (%)

Active

42 (52.5)

38 (47,5)

0.001

Unemployed

23 (74,19)

8 (25,81)

 

Sick-leave

19 (67,86)

9 (32,14)

 

Retired

37 (63,79)

21 (36,21)

 

House-wife

22 (100)

0 (0)

 

Educational level n (%)

Low

56 (73,68)

20 (26,32)

0.247

Medium

50 (60,98)

32 (39,02)

 

High

30 (58,82)

21 (41,18)

 

Illiteracy

4 (57,14)

3 (42,86)

 

Affected shoulder

n (%)

Dominant

75 (60.50)

49 (39.50)

0.118

Non-dominant

69 (71.10)

28 (28.9)

 

Diagnosis

n (%)

Shoulder pain

36 (63,16)

21 (36,84)

0.505

Frozen shoulder

11 (84,62)

2 (15,38)

 

Subacromial

19 (70,37)

8 (29,63)

 

Tendon

29 (63,04)

17 (36,96)

 

Surgery

26 (59,09)

18 (40,91)

 

Fracture

11 (68,75)

5 (31,25)

 

Instability

0 (0)

1 (100)

 
The original SPADI factor structure was tested by CFA, obtaining a poor fit: relative chi-square (x 2/df) 3.16, CFI 0.89, NFI 0.92, and RMSEA 0.10 (90 % CI 0.08 to 0.12). An additional model was tested, after deleting items which have had a bad adjustment in the model (1, 11, and 12), obtaining the best fit: relative chi-square (x 2/df) of 1.94, CFI 0.98, NFI 0.95, GFI 0,95, and RMSEA 0.06 (90 % CI 0.04 to 0.09) (Fig. 1). The analysis confirmed the bidimensional structure (pain and disability subscales).
Fig. 1

Confirmatory factor structure of SPADI

Multinormality test was evaluated with Mardia’s coefficient, which obtained a value of 36.3. The global inter-item correlations of this new 10-item version were 0.55, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,90. Item-total statistics are shown in Table 2, being all of them above 0.5.
Table 2

Inter-item total statistics

 

Scale mean if item deleted

Scale variance if item deleted

Corrected item-total correlation

Squared multiple correlation

Cronbach's alpha if item deleted

SPADI2

49,85

424,696

.515

.430

.908

SPADI3

49,53

415,248

.678

.603

.899

SPADI4

50,78

398,164

.724

.600

.896

SPADI5

50,39

404,958

.650

.520

.900

SPADI6

51,25

383,372

.754

.633

.894

SPADI7

49,19

408,582

.671

.527

.899

SPADI8

50,89

397,198

.755

.630

.894

SPADI9

53,35

403,221

.644

.562

.901

SPADI10

53,21

397,261

.687

.587

.898

SPADI13

51,18

393,603

.636

.426

.902

The convergent reliability between SPADI and DASH obtained a correlation Spearman’s Rho coefficient of 0.752 (p < 0.0001) and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.702 (p < 0.0001).

The final 10-items Spanish version of SPADI is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

10-items Spanish language version of the SPADI

Discussion

This study aimed to carry out the cross-cultural adaptation of SPADI for Spanish population and, secondly, to determine the psychometric properties of this version, in a population of patients suffering from shoulder pain. Regarding the first objective, the cross-cultural adaptation, our study encountered a few problems during the translation process, primarily in related to time period reference in the instructions. These problems were solved by the research team and the original author. The participants had no difficulty comprehending the questionnaire during the pilot study, and the translated version demonstrated good results in readability tests. We modified the original 13 item English language version of the SPADI by deleting those items with low correlations (items 1, 11 and 12). The confirmatory factor analysis for this new version attained the best fit. There was a strong correlation between the new Spanish Language SPADI and the Quick-Dash demonstrating good convergent validity. One of the strengths of this study was the scientific rigour of the methods used during the cross-cultural adaption phase. This included involving the original author to ensure the accuracy of the translation process. A previous study to adapt a new Spanish version of SPADI has been done recently [17]. These authors did not find any significant problems and/or difficulties in the cross-cultural adaptation process. The lack of difficulties in comprehension for the participants during the cross-cultural process is consistent with other studies [17, 28, 29]. Moreover, our new Spanish language version achieved good readability. The time required to complete the new Spanish Language SPADI are similar to the original version [11], although other cross-cultural versions have reported even less time to complete [29].

Regarding the psychometric properties, this is the first study of a Spanish language version of SPADI to utilize a factor structure analysis, with confirmatory methods. As a result of our structure factor analysis, items 1 (“How severe is your pain at your worst”), 11 (“Placing an object on a high shelf”) and 12 (“How much difficult do you have carrying a heavy object of 10 pounds”) were eliminated to achieve the best adjustment for the model. As a result, the new Spanish version for SPADI has different pain and disability subscales than the original English language version. Other studies have reported a unidimensional structure, without differences between pain and disability subscales [30, 31], while others were in consistent with the original version (two subscales) [32]. Based on our results, we recommend the use of this new 10-item Spanish SPADI-version.

The internal consistency of our version of the SPADI was good (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90) was consistent with the findings of Torres-Lacomba et al [17], who also reported good values in internal consistency (0.96). It is important to note that the sample for Torres-Lacomba study was very different from the sample for our study in that it was drawn from women with shoulder pain after breast cancer surgery. Similar to other cross-cultural studies on SPADI [3032], we found a strong correlation between the SPADI and the Quick-DASH indicating good convergent validity. Alsanawi et al [33] found a correlation between the SPADI and DASH of 0.84 (Spearman coefficient), while Ebrahimzadeh et al [28] reported a correlation of 0.61.

Our results imply that a new 10-items Spanish version for SPADI could be used by researchers and clinicians as a self-reported disability measure in patients suffering from shoulder pain in both routine clinical practice or in clinical research trials, This version keeps the properties of the original version, with two subscales (pain and disability). Spanish language is one of the most spoken languages around the world. Even though different Spanish speaker countries present some differences, semantic and grammatical rules are homogeneus, so that the version presented in this study could be of reference for other cross-cultural studies on SPADI, requiring only minor changes to adapt wording to accommodate the specific terms used in informal language. This new index could permit comparisons between other countries when studies on shoulder pain will be carried out.

However, there are some limitations in this study that should need to be recognized. Firstly, psychometric properties for Spanish-SPADI such as test-retest reliability, sensibility to change, as well as divergent validity have not been determined. The variety of different shoulder pain conditions in the participant sample could mean a risk of bias. Nevertheless, recent literature [34] recommends to avoid the use of subgroups in shoulder pain due to the lack of a gold standard for each of the diagnostic labels. The present study did no distinguish between participants with acute versus chronic shoulder pain and this might have influenced our findings so they must be taken with caution. Future investigations should be conducted to determine cutpoints in the score of this new version that could be used to classify patients with mild, moderate and/or severe shoulder pain.

Conclusions

This study carried out a cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Spanish language version of the SPADI for Spanish population, and an examination of the psychometric properties of this new version. This study validated a new 10-items version of SPADI for Spaniards providing a patient reported outcome measure for use in this population in both clinical practice and research.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics Committee of Costa del Sol in March 2014, Spain, approved this study (n° 011_marzo_PR). All participants in the study gave a written informed consent.

Abbreviations

CFA: 

confirmatory factor analysis

CFI: 

the comparative fit index

CI: 

confidence intervals

DASH: 

disability of arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire

GFI: 

goodness of fit index.

NFI: 

normed fit index

PRO: 

patient reported outcome

RMSEA: 

root mean square error of approximation

SPADI: 

shoulder pain and disability index

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank physical therapy students Francia Bedoya, Laura Lopez, and Javier Lopez for their contribution in the recruitment phase of this study, and also to all the physical therapists of the Costa del Sol Health District, Malaga, Spain, involved in this study.

Funding

This study was no funded.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Malaga
(2)
Las Lagunas Primary Health Care Center, Costa del Sol Sanitary District
(3)
Department of Nursing, Physical Therapy and Medicine, University of Almeria
(4)
Department of Physical Therapy, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami
(5)
Department of Nursing, University of Malaga

References

  1. Urwin M, Symmons D, Allison T, Brammah T, Busby H, Roxby M, Simmons A, Williams G. Estimating the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in the community: the comparative prevalence of symptoms at different anatomical sites, and the relation to social deprivation. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998;57:649–55.Google Scholar
  2. Chard MD, Hazleman R, Hazleman BL, King RH, Reiss BB. Shoulder disorders in the elderly: a community survey. Arthritis Rheum. 1991;34:766–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Van der Heijden GJ. Shoulder disorders: a state-of-the-art review. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 1999;13:287–309.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. van der Windt D a, Koes BW, de Jong B a, Bouter LM. Shoulder disorders in general practice: incidence, patient characteristics, and management. Ann Rheum Dis. 1995;54:959–64.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Roquelaure Y, Ha C, Leclerc A, Touranchet A, Sauteron M, Melchior M, Imbernon E, Goldberg M. Epidemiologic surveillance of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders in the working population. Arthritis Care Res. 2006;55:765–78.Google Scholar
  6. Linsell L, Dawson J, Zondervan K, Rose P, Randall T, Fitzpatrick R, Carr a. Prevalence and incidence of adults consulting for shoulder conditions in UK primary care; patterns of diagnosis and referral. Rheumatology. 2006;45:215–21.Google Scholar
  7. Schmidt S, Ferrer M, González M, González N, Valderas JM, Alonso J, Escobar A, Vrotsou K. Evaluation of shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic and standardized comparison of available evidence. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:434–44.Google Scholar
  8. Badcock LJ, Lewis M, Hay EM, McCarney R, Croft PR. Chronic shoulder pain in the community: a syndrome of disability or distress? Ann Rheum Dis. 2002;61:128–31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Varela E, Valero R, Küçükdeveci a a, Oral A, Ilieva E, Berteanu M, et al. Shoulder pain management. The role of physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians. The European perspective based on the best evidence. A paper by the UEMS-PRM section professional practice committee. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;49:743–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Desai AS, Dramis A, Hearnden AJ. Critical appraisal of subjective outcome measures used in assessment of shoulder disability. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010;92:9–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y. Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res. 1991;4:143–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J. Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and Its Short Version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society Standardized Shoulder. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63 Suppl 11:174–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. MacDermid JC, Solomon P, Prkachin K. The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index demonstrates factor, construct and longitudinal validity. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Paul A, Lewis M, Shadforth MF, Croft PR, Van Der Windt D a WM, Hay EM. A comparison of four shoulder-specific questionnaires in primary care. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:1293–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Bot SDM, Terwee CB, van der Windt D a WM, Bouter LM, Dekker J, de Vet HCW. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:335–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N, Group ERI and Q of LA (ERIQA). Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Heal. 2008;11:509–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Torres-Lacomba M, Sánchez-Sánchez B, Prieto-Gómez V, Pacheco-da-Costa S, Yuste-Sánchez MJ, Navarro-Brazález B, Gutiérrez-Ortega C. Spanish cultural adaptation and validation of the shoulder pain and disability index, and the oxford shoulder score after breast cancer surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:63.Google Scholar
  18. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Bouter LM. Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1137–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Heal. 2005;8:95–104.Google Scholar
  20. Readability [https://readability-score.com/].
  21. MacCallum R, Lee T, Browne MW. The issue of isopower in power analysis for tests of structural equation models. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 2010;17:23–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Statistica [http://www.statsoft.com/Products/STATISTICA/Product-Index].
  23. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt D a WM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.Google Scholar
  24. Rosales RS. Quick-DASH Spanish version. 2006.Google Scholar
  25. Bollen KA. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. 1989.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Stats 21 [http://www-01.ibm.com/software/es/stats21/].
  27. Amos [http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/es/spss-amos].
  28. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad A, Golhasani F, Moradi A, Vahedi E, Kachooei AR. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability testing of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index in the Persian population with shoulder problems. Int J Rehabil Res. 2013;2014:1–4.Google Scholar
  29. Angst F, Goldhahn J, Pap G, Mannion a F, Roach KE, Siebertz D, Drerup S, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the German Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46:87–92.Google Scholar
  30. Jamnik H, Spevak MK. Shoulder pain and disability index: validation of Slovene version. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31:337–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Tveitå EK, Ekeberg OM, Juel NG, Bautz-Holter E. Responsiveness of the shoulder pain and disability index in patients with adhesive capsulitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:161.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Hill CL, Lester S, Taylor AW, Shanahan ME, Gill TK. Factor structure and validity of the shoulder pain and disability index in a population-based study of people with shoulder symptoms. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Alsanawi HA, Alghadir A, Anwer S, Roach KE, Alawaji A. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of an Arabic version of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Int J Rehabil Res. 2015;38:270–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Thomas S, Koes BW. Lack of uniformity in diagnostic labeling of shoulder pain: Time for a different approach. Man Ther. 2008;13:478–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Luque-Suarez et al. 2016

Advertisement