↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire in patients with skeletal muscle injury of the upper or lower extremities

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire in patients with skeletal muscle injury of the upper or lower extremities
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0617-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying Wang, Zehui He, Lifang Lei, Dingkun Lin, Yajie Li, Gang Wang, Huimin Zhai, Jingli Xu, Guangqing Zhang, Meizhen Lin

Abstract

The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) questionnaire is one of the most commonly used scales to evaluate functional status and quality of life (QOL) of patients with a broad range of musculoskeletal disorders. However, a Chinese version of the SMFA questionnaire for the psychometric properties of skeletal muscle injury patients in China is still lacking. The current study translated the SMFA into Chinese and assessed its reliability and validity among Chinese patients with skeletal muscle injury of the upper or lower extremities. The original SMFA was translated from English into Chinese and culturally adapted according to cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted, comprising 339 skeletal muscle injury patients (aged 20-75 years) from 4 hospitals. The SMFA, the health survey short form (SF-36) along with a region-specific questionnaire (including the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH), the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS), the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), and the foot function index (FFI)) were completed according to the region of injury. Reliability was estimated from the internal consistency using Cronbach's α and validity was assessed via convergent validity, known-groups comparison, and construct validity. Cronbach's α coefficient was over 0.75 for two subscales and four categories of the SMFA, suggesting that the internal consistency reliability of the SMFA was satisfactory. Known-groups comparison showed that the dysfunction index and the bother index of the SMFA discriminated well between patients who differed in age, gender, injury location, and operation status rather than in subgroups based on the body mass index (BMI). The convergent validity of the SMFA was good, as moderate to excellent correlations were found between the subscales of the SMFA and the four subscales of SF-36 (physical function, role-physical, bodily pain, and social functioning) and the region-specific questionnaires. The construct validity was proved by the presence of a six-factor structure that accounted for 66.85 % of the variance. The Chinese version of the SMFA questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to measure patient-reported impact of musculoskeletal injuries in the upper or lower extremities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 122 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 48 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 19%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 54 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,247,377
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,125
of 4,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,970
of 262,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#34
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 262,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.