↓ Skip to main content

Chinese version of the Constant-Murley questionnaire for shoulder pain and disability: a reliability and validation study

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chinese version of the Constant-Murley questionnaire for shoulder pain and disability: a reliability and validation study
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0752-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min Yao, Long Yang, Zuo-yuan Cao, Shao-dan Cheng, Shuang-lin Tian, Yue-li Sun, Jing Wang, Bao-ping Xu, Xiao-chun Hu, Yong-jun Wang, Ying Zhang, Xue-jun Cui

Abstract

Shoulder pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder in Chinese population, which affects more than 1,3 billion individuals. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no available Chinese-language version of measurements of shoulder pain and disability so far. Moreover, the Constant-Murley score (CMS) questionnaire is a universally recognized patient-reported questionnaire for clinical practice and research. The present study was designed to evaluate a Chinese translational version of CMS and subsequently assess its reliability and validity. The Chinese translational version of CMS was formulated by means of forward-backward translation. Meanwhile, a final review was carried out by an expert committee, followed by conducting a test of the pre-final version. Therefore, the reliability and validity of the Chinese translational version of CMS could be assessed using the internal consistency, construct validity, factor analysis, reliability and floor and ceiling effects. Specifically, the reliability was assessed by testing the internal consistency (Cronbach's α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation [ICC]), while the construct validity was evaluated via comparison between the Chinese translational version of CMS with visual analog scale (VAS) score and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36, Spearman correlation). The questionnaire was verified to be acceptable after distribution among 120 subjects with unilateral shoulder pain. Factor analysis had revealed a two-factor and 10-item solution. Moreover, the assessment results indicated that the Chinese translational version of CMS questionnaire harbored good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.739) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.827). In addition, the Chinese translational version of CMS was moderately correlated with VAS score (r = 0.497) and SF-36 (r = 0.135). No obvious floor and ceiling effects were observed in the Chinese translational version of CMS questionnaire. Chinese translational version of CMS exhibited good reliability, which is relatively acceptable and is likely to be widely used in this population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#11,778,561
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,044
of 1,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,066
of 276,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,660 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.