ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Adaptation and validation study of the Polish version of the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score
1
Faculty of Health Sciences and Psychology, Collegium Medicum, University of Rzeszow, Poland.
2
The Holy Family Specialist Hospital, Rudna Mała, Poland
3
Department of Physiotherapy, Collegium Medicum, University of Information Technology and Management, Rzeszow, Poland
4
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Interior, Warsaw, Poland
5
Faculty of Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Warsaw, Poland
Submission date: 2025-04-25
Acceptance date: 2025-08-21
Online publication date: 2026-09-18
Corresponding author
Agnieszka Bejer
1. Faculty of Health Sciences and Psychology, Collegium Medicum, University of Rzeszów, Poland. 2. The Holy Family Specialist Hospital, Rudna Mała Poland.
1. Faculty of Health Sciences and Psychology, Collegium Medicum, University of Rzeszów, Poland. 2. The Holy Family Specialist Hospital, Rudna Mała Poland.
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The diagnostic process of individuals with shoulder instability (SI) should include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
Aim of the research:
The aim of this study was to perform a translation and cultural adaptation of the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS) for the Polish population (PL) and to evaluate its psychometric properties.
Material and methods:
This was a prospective cohort study with a repeated-measures design. Patients after arthroscopic repair for SI (n = 75) were tested three times to assess the following: internal consistency, reliability, and responsiveness. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the OSIS-PL with the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH). To confirm the one-dimensional structure of the OSIS-PL, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. Responsiveness of the ULFI-PL was assessed using effect size (ES) and standardised mean response (SMR).
Results:
The OSIS-PL demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.93) and test–retest reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.99). Five out of six hypotheses (83.33%) formulated a priori were confirmed (p < 0.05), which suggests high construct validity of the OSIS-PL. The CFA identified a one-dimensional structure of the OSIS-PL (chi-squared: ² = 11.592, p > 0.999; all the defined fit indices showed adequate values). The OSIS-PL showed from moderate (ES = 0.412) to high (SRM = 1.307) degree of responsiveness.
Conclusions:
The OSIS-PL is a simple, user-friendly PROM, which demonstrates high reliability, validity, and responsiveness in Polish populations following arthroscopic SI repair.
The diagnostic process of individuals with shoulder instability (SI) should include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
Aim of the research:
The aim of this study was to perform a translation and cultural adaptation of the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS) for the Polish population (PL) and to evaluate its psychometric properties.
Material and methods:
This was a prospective cohort study with a repeated-measures design. Patients after arthroscopic repair for SI (n = 75) were tested three times to assess the following: internal consistency, reliability, and responsiveness. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the OSIS-PL with the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH). To confirm the one-dimensional structure of the OSIS-PL, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. Responsiveness of the ULFI-PL was assessed using effect size (ES) and standardised mean response (SMR).
Results:
The OSIS-PL demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.93) and test–retest reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.99). Five out of six hypotheses (83.33%) formulated a priori were confirmed (p < 0.05), which suggests high construct validity of the OSIS-PL. The CFA identified a one-dimensional structure of the OSIS-PL (chi-squared: ² = 11.592, p > 0.999; all the defined fit indices showed adequate values). The OSIS-PL showed from moderate (ES = 0.412) to high (SRM = 1.307) degree of responsiveness.
Conclusions:
The OSIS-PL is a simple, user-friendly PROM, which demonstrates high reliability, validity, and responsiveness in Polish populations following arthroscopic SI repair.
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Moya D, Aydin N, Yamamoto N, Simone JP, Robles PP, Tytherleigh-Strong G, Gobbato B, Kholinne E, Jeon IH. Current concepts in anterior glenohumeral instability: diagnosis and treatment. SICOT J. 2021; 7: 48.
2.
Eberlin CT, Varady NH, Kucharik MP, Naessig SA, Best MJ, Martin SD. Comparison of perioperative complications following surgical treatment of shoulder instability. JSES Int. 2022; 6(3): 355-361.
3.
Olds M, Ellis R, Parmar P, Kersten P. The immediate and subsequent impact of a first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in people aged 16–40: Results from a national cohort study. Shoulder Elbow. 2021; 13(2): 223-232.
4.
van der Linde JA, Bosmans JE, Meulen DP, van Kampen DA, van Deurzen DFP, Haverlag R, Saris DB, van den Bekerom MPJ. Direct and indirect costs associated with nonoperative treatment for shoulder instability: an observational study in 132 patients. Shoulder Elbow. 2019; 11(4): 265-274.
5.
Prinsen CCA, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27: 1147-1157.
6.
Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Bejer A, Wiśniowska-Szurlej A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, de Sire A, Spalek R, Sozański B. Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients with low back pain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(19): 7284.
7.
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The assessment of shoulder instability. The development and validation of a questionnaire. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999; 81(3): 420-426.
8.
Dawson J, Rogers K, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The Oxford shoulder score revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009; 129: 119-123.
9.
Szczepanik M, Bejer A, Snela S, Szymczyk D, Jabłoński J, Majewska J. Polish cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS) in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Med Sci Monit. 2018; 24: 5309-5319.
10.
Mazzoni B, Cucchi D, Giovannelli T, Paci M, Arrigoni P, Nicoletti S. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Italian version of the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. Int Orthop. 2019; 43(9): 2125-2129.
11.
Olyaei GR, Mousavi SJ, Montazeri A, Malmir K. Translation and validation study of the Persian version of the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. J Mod Rehab. 2016; 10(1): 24-28.
12.
Hanna SS, Khaja AF, Bouhamrah AK, Maqdes A. Validity and reliability of the oxford shoulder instability score translated into Arabic. J Musculoskelet Disord Treat. 2020; 6: 082.
13.
van der Linde JA, van Kampen DA, van Beers WAH, van Deurzen FP, Terwee CB, Willems WJ. The Oxford Shoulder Instability Score; validation in Dutch and first-time assessment of its smallest detectable change. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015; 10: 146.
14.
Sonmezer E, Yosmaoglu HB , Doğan CD. The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. Disabil Rehabil. 2020; 42(2): 261-266.
15.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19: 539-549.
16.
Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz 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 Health. 2005; 8(2): 94-104.
17.
Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN; Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(5): 1038-1046.
18.
Golicki D, Krzysiak M, Strzelczyk P. Translation and cultural adaptation of the Polish version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and QuickDASH questionnaires. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2014; 16: 387-395.
19.
Tylka J, Piotrowicz R. SF-36 Life Quality Assessment Questionnaire – Polish version. Pol Heart J. 2009; 67: 1166-1169.
20.
Hays RD, Morale LS. The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Ann Med. 2001; 33: 350-357.
21.
Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009; 17: 163-170.
22.
R Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2022 https://www.R-project.org/.
23.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60(1): 34-42.
24.
Bujang MA, Baharum N. A simplified guide to determination of sample size requirements for estimating the value of intraclass correlation coefficient: a review. Arch Orofac Sci. 2017; 12(1): 1-11. .
25.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bou- ter LM, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. Version July 2019. Available from: https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-conte....
26.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 737-745.
27.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge University Press, New York 2011.
28.
Naylor JM, Hayen A, Davidson E, Hackett D, Harris IA, Kamalasena G, Mittal Rajat. Minimal detectable change for mobility and patient-reported tools in people with osteoarthritis awaiting arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014; 11(15): 235.
29.
Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018; 18(3): 91-93.
30.
Li CH. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods. 2016; 48: 936-949.
31.
Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6(1): 1-55. .
32.
Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53: 459-468.
33.
Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 102-109.
34.
Foong WS, Zeng GJ, Goh GS, Hao Y, Lie DTT, Chang PCC. Determining the minimal clinically important difference on the oxford shoulder instability score in patients undergoing arthroscopic bankart repair for shoulder instability. Orthop J Sport Med. 2022; 10(1): 23259671211060023.
| eISSN: | 2300-6722 |
| ISSN: | 1899-1874 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
