Background

Despite the importance of assessing patient outcomes during patient care, current evidence suggests relatively limited use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by athletic trainers (ATs). Major barriers to PROM use include lack of knowledge, navigating the intricate process of assessing a wide variety of PROMs, and selecting the most appropriate PROM to use for care. A concise resource for ATs to consult when selecting and implementing PROMs may help facilitate the use of PROMs in athletic health care.

Objective

To review the instrument essentials and clinical utility of PROMs used by ATs.

Methods

We studied 11 lower extremity region–specific, 10 upper extremity region–specific, 6 generic, and 3 single-item PROMs based on the endorsement of at least 10% of ATs who use PROMs, as reported in a recent investigation of PROM use in athletic training. A literature search was conducted for each included PROM that focused on identifying and extracting components of the instrument essentials (ie, instrument development, reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability, and precision) and clinical utility (ie, acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness). Through independent review and group consensus, we also classified each PROM question by International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domain and health-related quality-of-life dimensions.

Key Findings

The PROMs contained in this report generally possessed appropriate instrument essentials and clinical utility. Moreover, the PROMs generally emphasized body structure and function as well as the physical functioning of the patient. Athletic trainers aiming to assess patients via a whole-person approach may benefit from combining different PROMs for use in patient care to ensure broader attention to disablement health domains and health-related quality-of-life dimensions.

In aligning itself with global health care initiatives,15  the athletic training profession has made focused efforts to foster the assessment of clinical outcomes, particularly patient-reported outcomes, during routine patient care.68  For example, the athletic training profession has highlighted the need to assess patient-reported outcomes in the current editions of the Athletic Training Education Competencies9  and the Role Delineation Study,10  as well as the 2020 Standards for Accreditation of Professional Athletic Training Programs.11  Furthermore, the National Athletic Trainers' Association has recently adopted the use of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework, highlighting the need for athletic trainers (ATs) to view patients from a whole-person perspective.12  These foundational documents in athletic training emphasize not only the need for clinical outcomes assessment during patient care but also the important role patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) play in capturing the patient's perspective, informing patient care decisions, and evaluating the effectiveness of treatment approaches from a whole-person perspective.46,13 

Although the importance of assessing patient outcomes and the use of PROMs is clear, current evidence suggests only 15% to 26% of ATs routinely use PROMs during patient care.1416  When asked to identify barriers to the routine use of PROMs during patient care, ATs who did not use PROMs reported that the lack of education about and understanding of PROMs impeded their ability to successfully implement PROMs in their clinical practice.1416  Recent findings17  indicated that the vast majority of ATs (68%–98%) were unfamiliar with PROMs that were frequently reported in the athletic training literature, including the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM; 82.1% of the sample was unfamiliar), the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (86.2% were unfamiliar), and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS; 82.1% were unfamiliar), further underscoring this lack of knowledge. Although a general lack of knowledge of and inexperience with PROMs are not unique to the athletic training profession,18  these barriers can negatively affect the comprehensive implementation of PROMs during patient care, particularly during the intricate process of selecting the most appropriate instrument among the numerous available PROMs.

To help ATs evaluate the available PROMs and identify the most appropriate instruments for use in patient care, Snyder Valier and Lam19  provided a detailed summary of the major considerations related to PROM selection. In short, ATs should consider both the instrument essentials (ie, instrument development, reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability, and precision) and the clinical utility (ie, acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness) of the instrument.19  Furthermore, when assessing the appropriateness of a PROM, ATs were advised19  to consider the health domains represented in disablement models20  and dimensions of health-related quality of life (HRQOL)21,22  captured by the instrument to ensure that the PROM can support patient-centered care. Because of busy athletic training clinicians' lack of time and resources,14,15,18  gathering and evaluating all the information related to the instrument essentials and clinical utility for numerous PROMs is challenging. Although previous authors have reviewed the use of PROMs in the sports medicine community, these commentaries have generally reviewed PROMs from the perspectives of orthopaedic surgeons, whose patient population may not necessarily reflect the young and highly functional patient population for whom ATs usually provide care2325  or may not have reviewed a comprehensive list of PROMs reported by ATs who routinely use them.26  In addition, these researchers did not critically review instruments based on the health domains represented in disablement models or dimension of HRQOL, which are important components to patient-centered, whole-person care. Therefore, the purpose of our report was to critically review the instrument essentials and clinical utility of the PROMs reported by ATs who used PROMs to (1) provide a helpful and concise guide for ATs to refer to during the PROM selection process and (2) facilitate the use of PROMs in athletic training clinical practice.

METHODS

Identification of PROMs

To provide ATs with a concise guide to PROMs, we reviewed the instruments reported by ATs who used PROMs in routine practice. In a survey study by Lam et al,15  ATs who used PROMs on a routine basis were asked to identify the PROMs they used for patient care and research purposes. Based on the responses of 370 ATs who routinely used PROMs in care, 78 unique PROMs were endorsed and identified. We included PROMs in this report if at least 10% of the ATs endorsed their use in the study by Lam et al.15 

Literature Search

Using the list of PROMs, we conducted a 2-phase literature search. First, we searched the literature with a focus on instrument development and establishment of the psychometric properties of each PROM. We completed 4 searches for each PROM using its name and the following key words: development, validity, reliability, responsiveness. For example, we performed these searches for the FAAM: (1) Foot and Ankle Ability Measure AND development, (2) Foot and Ankle Ability Measure AND validity, (3) Foot and Ankle Ability Measure AND reliability, and (4) Foot and Ankle Ability Measure AND responsiveness. For the second phase, we searched the literature for the use of the PROM specifically among athletes. For this phase, we used the PROM name in combination with 1 of 2 key words (athlet*, sport) in separate searches: for instance, (1) Foot and Ankle Ability Measure” AND athlet* and (2) Foot and Ankle Ability Measure AND sport. This process was repeated for each PROM.

Data Extraction

We extracted data from the available literature to summarize the instrument essentials (ie, instrument development, reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability, and precision) and clinical utility (ie, acceptability [number of items, time to complete, readability, comfort-level concerns], feasibility [ease of use, role of clinician, time to score, costs associated with use], and appropriateness [intended patient populations, demonstrated use for other patient populations, global purpose of use]) of each PROM included in this report.

For instrument acceptability, we also assessed the readability of each PROM. Readability is important for all patients but particularly for patients who are minors, such as secondary school and youth athletes, or nonnative English speakers.27,28  For this review, readability was represented by the Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level. To calculate the Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level, we used Word for Mac (version 16.15; Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA). In short, each PROM was imported into Microsoft Word and its unformatted text was analyzed with the embedded formula to provide a reading grade level for the measure.

For instrument appropriateness, we also summarized the ICF health domains and HRQOL dimensions captured by each PROM using a consensus process described in a previous study.29  In brief, the consensus process required each research team member (n = 3, all of whom had expertise in clinical outcomes assessment [eg, teaching, presentation, and research experience in clinical outcomes assessment]) to review the included PROMs independently and classify each PROM question within 1 ICF health domain20  and 1 HRQOL dimension.21,22  After performing independent reviews of all PROMs and initial classification of questions according to ICF health domains and HRQOL dimensions, the raters met as a group to compare their classifications. Discrepancies in classifications were discussed, and a final classification was determined by group consensus.

Descriptions of the specific ICF health domains and HRQOL dimensions used for this study were detailed in a previous investigation.29  In brief, for the ICF health domains, raters classified each question in one of the following domains: health condition, body structure and function, activity, participation, environmental factors, or personal factors.20,29  When necessary, the raters were able to consult the ICF Web site (apps.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser/) during the review process for guidance in categorizing ICF health domains. For the HRQOL dimensions, each item was classified in one of the following areas: physiological (ie, impairments such as pain and swelling), physical (ie, ability to perform activities and attributes such as mobility and performance), psychological (ie, emotional well-being, including happiness and sadness), spiritual (ie, value of religious beliefs and practices), social (ie, interactions with family and friends), or economic (ie, financial status and burden) functioning.21,22,29 

KEY FINDINGS

Based on the findings of Lam et al,15  a total of 17 region-specific, 6 generic, and 3 single-item PROMs were endorsed by at least 10% of the ATs who used PROMs and thus were reviewed for this report. For region-specific PROMs, 11 lower extremity–specific (3 foot and ankle, 3 knee, 3 hip, 2 back) and 10 upper extremity–specific (3 shoulder-elbow, 3 wrist-hand, 1 neck, 3 head) instruments were studied (Table 1). Four PROMs were identified for use in multiple body regions: the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (knee and hip), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH; wrist-hand and shoulder-elbow), Quick-DASH (wrist-hand and shoulder-elbow), and Upper Extremity Functional Scale (wrist-hand and shoulder-elbow).

Table 1

Concise Summary of Included Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Concise Summary of Included Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
Concise Summary of Included Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

As a result, a total of 26 unique PROMs (10 lower extremity region specific, 7 upper extremity region specific, 6 generic, and 3 single item) were evaluated in this review. Consistent with Lam et al,15  we classified the PSFS as a single-item measure because it is neither a specific nor a generic measure. Table 1 provides a general summary of the instrument essentials and clinical utility of each included PROM for quick reference. More detailed summaries of the instrument essentials, including specific measurement property values, of lower extremity–specific, upper extremity–specific, and generic and single-item measures can be found in Tables 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Summaries of considerations for clinical utility can be found in Tables 5, 6, and 7.

Table 2

Lower Extremity Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Essential Elements

Lower Extremity Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Essential Elements
Lower Extremity Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Essential Elements
Table 3

Upper Extremity Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Essential Elements

Upper Extremity Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Essential Elements
Upper Extremity Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Essential Elements
Table 4

Generic and Single-Item Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Essential Elements

Generic and Single-Item Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Essential Elements
Generic and Single-Item Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Essential Elements
Table 5

Lower Extremity (LE) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Considerations for Clinical Utility Extended on Next Page

Lower Extremity (LE) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Considerations for Clinical Utility Extended on Next Page
Lower Extremity (LE) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Considerations for Clinical Utility Extended on Next Page
Table 5

Extended From Previous Page

Extended From Previous Page
Extended From Previous Page
Table 6

Upper Extremity (UE) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Considerations for Clinical Utility Continued on Next Page

Upper Extremity (UE) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Considerations for Clinical Utility Continued on Next Page
Upper Extremity (UE) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Considerations for Clinical Utility Continued on Next Page
Table 7

Generic and Single-Item Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Considerations for Clinical Utility Extended on Next Page

Generic and Single-Item Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Considerations for Clinical Utility Extended on Next Page
Generic and Single-Item Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Considerations for Clinical Utility Extended on Next Page
Table 7

Extended From Previous Page

Extended From Previous Page
Extended From Previous Page

Region-Specific Measures

Instrument Essentials

Of the 10 lower and 7 upper extremity region-specific PROMs, all (100.0%, 17 of 17) were associated with the appropriate instrument essentials, with a reported systematic development process and evidence of reliability and validity (Tables 2 and 3). In addition, responsiveness values were reported for almost all region-specific PROMs (88.2%, 15 of 17), with the exception of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Questionnaire and Abbreviated Profiles of Mood States. The precision of the PROMs varied within and among instruments, with response scales including some combination of binary, modified visual analog scale, 3- to 7-point adjectival, and 5-point Likert-scale responses.

Clinical Utility

In terms of clinical utility, the region-specific PROMs also generally demonstrated appropriate acceptability (Tables 5 and 6). Patient completion time was estimated as less than 10 minutes for almost all of the PROMs (15 of 17, 88.2%), with the expectation that many could be completed in 5 minutes or less (11 of 17, 64.7%). Readability of the measures ranged from fourth to 10th grade (Table 5) and third to sixth grade (Table 6) for the lower extremity and upper extremity PROMs, respectively. Most PROMs (13 of 17, 76.6%) had an estimated reading level of seventh grade or below. The region-specific PROMs also demonstrated good feasibility, with none requiring (1) special training to understand the administration process, (2) a clinician to complete the questions, or (3) clinician supervision of the patient during completion. Although 3 instruments (17.6%) required a user agreement, only 1 instrument, the Shortened Headache Impact Test, required paid access for use. In addition, the clinician burden was relatively low, with the time to score each measure estimated at ≤5 minutes. In terms of appropriateness, most appeared relevant to the types of conditions or areas of health effect that are important to athletes. Further, although the majority of the region-specific PROMs appeared to address items of importance to athletes, most were not developed specifically for high-functioning athletic populations (94.1%, 16 of 17). From an ICF health domain perspective, the region-specific PROMs generally captured the body structure and function (39.1%, 163 of 417 items) and activity (45.1%, 188 of 417 items) domains. Very few of the items on the region-specific instruments were related to the participation (13.2%, 55 of 417 items) or environmental factors (2.6%, 11 of 417 items) domain, and none included questions related to the health condition domain. From an HRQOL dimension perspective, the region-specific PROM instruments included questions that predominantly evaluated the physical (54.7%, 228 of 417 items) and physiological (23.7%, 99 of 417 items) dimensions. The psychological (12.7%, 53 of 417) and social (8.9%, 37 of 417 items) dimensions were captured less frequently, and none of the region-specific measures addressed the spiritual or economic dimension.

Generic Measures

Instrument Essentials

We reviewed 6 generic PROMs. All were developed using a systematic process, had evidence of reliability and validity, and had established responsiveness values in some populations (Table 4). Similar to the region-specific PROMs, the precision of the generic PROMs varied within and among instruments, with questions requiring binary, 3- to 11-point adjectival, and 5- to 15-point Likert responses.

Clinical Utility

In general, most generic PROMs (4 of 6, 66.7%) demonstrated good acceptability and feasibility, including appropriate patient completion time (less than 5 minutes), no comfort-level concerns, and limited clinician burden associated with the Disablement in the Physically Active (DPA) scale, Pediatric Quality of Life, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and Short Form 12 (Table 7). Of note, the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) and Short MFA both consist of more items (110 and 46, respectively) and, thus, require more time to complete (15 and 5–10 minutes, respectively) relative to the other generic PROMs. In addition, the MFA and Short MFA also include items with potential comfort-level items (ie, Has your sexual life changed? Do you enjoy sex less? How much difficulty are you having with sexual activity?) for patients. The readability of the included generic PROMs ranged from second to 10th grade, with 77.8% (7 of 9) estimated at sixth grade or below (Table 7). From an ICF health domain perspective, the generic PROMs generally captured the body structure and function (35.0%, 85 of 243 items), activity (35.0%, 85 of 243 items), and participation (30.0%, 73 of 243 items) domains. None of the items on the generic instruments were related to the health condition or environmental factors domain. From an HRQOL dimension perspective, the generic instruments included questions that predominantly evaluated the physical (40.7%, 99 of 243 items), physiological (25.1%, 61 of 243 items), and social (23.9%, 58 of 243 items) dimensions of health. The psychological (10.3%, 25 of 243) dimension was captured less frequently, and none of the region-specific measures addressed the spiritual or economic dimension.

Single-Item Measures

Instrument Essentials

The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and PSFS have established reliability, validity, and responsiveness in some populations; however, only the GROC involved a systematic development process (Table 4). The NPRS and PSFS use 10- and 5-point adjectival scales, respectively, whereas the GROC was developed as a 15-point Likert-type scale.

Clinical Utility

The single-item measures appear to have good acceptability and feasibility with short times for patient completion (<3 minutes) and low clinician burden (<1 minute; Table 7). The NPRS captures the body structure and function domain and the physiological HRQOL dimension, and the PSFS assesses the activity domain and physical HRQOL dimension; however, the ICF health domain and HRQOL dimension captured by the GROC vary, as they depend on how patients perceive their condition or injury and the subsequent frame of reference when reflecting on and answering the question.

COMMENTARY

To our knowledge, this is the first report to critically review and summarize the instrument essentials and clinical utility of generic, specific, and single-item PROMs that are used in athletic health care. In addition, we provided a summary of the ICF health domains and HRQOL dimensions that questions within each PROM addressed to offer insight into their use when delivering patient-centered care. Overall, we aimed to provide a helpful, concise resource for ATs to consult when selecting and implementing PROMs.

In general, the PROMs studied in this commentary demonstrated appropriate instrument essentials, with almost all having a systematic development process and acceptable psychometric properties including reliability, validity, and responsiveness. However, it is important to note that only a few of the instruments were specifically designed to evaluate aspects of disablement and health among highly functional patients, such as athletes. For example, of the instruments reviewed, only the DPA77,78  and the Abbreviated Profile of Mood States74  were developed with athletes as the intended population. Further, much of the research to date related to the instrument measurement properties of generic, specific, and single-item PROMs has been conducted in populations other than a highly functional patient population such as athletes. This finding is a concern when considering the validity of the instruments for use in athletic health care.

Other PROMs were designed for the athletic population, such as the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic overhead athlete score,142  the Functional Arm Scale for Throwers,143,144  the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire,145  and the Swimmer's Functional Pain Scale.146  Yet previous research15  indicated that fewer than 10% of ATs routinely used these instruments. Thus, they were not included in this report. However, even though many of the included PROMs were developed for more general populations, these patients often presented with injuries similar to those sustained by athletes.35,53  Ideally, measurement properties such as reliability, validity, and responsiveness should be established for the intended population.19  Because evidence147149  suggested that the HRQOL of highly functional patients is different than that of the general population, future work is needed to establish the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the PROMs most commonly used in athletes.

The PROMs included in this report appear appropriate, acceptable, and feasible for use in athletic health care. Considering readability specifically, the general guidance was that the calculated reading grade level be 2 reading levels below a patient's actual grade level.27,28  For example, a patient in the ninth grade should be administered a PROM with a reading level of seventh grade or lower. Of the reviewed PROMs, the vast majority (20 of 26, 76.2%) had an estimated reading level of seventh grade or lower, suggesting that they would likely be appropriate for adult and adolescent patients. However, it is important to note that a patient's grade level may not necessarily align with his or her actual reading level (eg, students of English as a second language); clinicians should take this into account when selecting a PROM.

When we assessed the ICF health domains and HRQOL dimensions of health captured by the reviewed PROMs, it was not surprising that many of the instruments emphasized specific aspects of health. Most instruments include questions that evaluate the ICF health domains of body structure and function and the HRQOL dimensions of physiological and physical functioning. For example, the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and the FAAM are region-specific PROMs that focus solely on functional ability. Using PROMs that evaluate physical function in athletic health care is appropriate because highly functional patients often focus on maintaining or regaining high levels of physical function to perform activities in daily life and sports. For example, a common goal of athletes is to restore function to compete in their sports and fulfill their role as an athlete. Instruments that evaluate function allow ATs to better direct rehabilitation to meet these performance and role goals (ie, participation domain of the ICF). Even though regaining function is a common goal of athletes, other ICF health domains and HRQOL dimensions may warrant attention.19 

Information related to body structures and functions, such as range of motion and strength, is helpful for clinicians to obtain a more complete understanding of the status of tissue healing, which may support treatment decisions to promote continued recovery.20  An equally important area of health to evaluate is participation. However, the participation domain was not a frequent component of the PROMs included in this review. Participation reflects the areas of health that many patients care most about because it relates to the ability to complete necessary or desired life roles, such as athlete, friend, student, parent, or employee.20  When selecting PROMs, ATs should consider whether the patient case warrants evaluation of the participation domain, particularly because athletes often have a strong identity grounded in being an athlete. The effect of identity loss due to injury and removal from sport may be an important focus when managing and coordinating care for a patient. In general, generic instruments include more questions that capture participation than specific instruments because they are designed to assess health on a more global level. However, some of the region-specific measures, such as the DASH,53  the Dizziness Handicap Inventory,75  and the Low Back Outcome Score,46  do contain several questions related to the participation domain and may be considered depending on the region of the patient's injury.

Consider, for example, the care of a patient with an ankle sprain. The FAAM may be the PROM that a clinician identifies for use based on the fit of the instrument to the region of interest, instrument essentials, and patient friendliness. However, one consideration is that the FAAM is largely focused on functional ability.31  If the AT is approaching care from a patient-centered, whole-person perspective, coupling the FAAM with additional PROMs may be necessary, as the FAAM may evaluate only a limited scope of the HRQOL dimensions affected by an injury. A generic instrument (eg, Pediatric Quality of Life, DPA) could be considered depending on the HRQOL dimensions most relevant to the patient. In a recent case report, Fraser and Hertel150  described the effect of a lateral ankle sprain on comprehensive function, HRQOL, and kinesiophobia. Through their use of multiple PROMs (ie, Godin Leisure-Time Exercise questionnaire, FAAM, Identification of Functional Ankle Instability, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, EuroQoL), the authors were able to capture postinjury deficits across multiple ICF health domains and HRQOL dimensions and comprehensively manage the rehabilitation process while considering the patient's perspective via PROMs. In this case report,150  they used many instruments, which may be unrealistic for everyday patient care. However, the diversity of these instruments provided the clinicians with unique information that helped drive treatment and emphasized patient-centered care. This example shows that whereas most of the PROMs are valid for use in managing patient care, patient goals and case details (eg, ICF health domains, health dimensions) may be strong factors influencing instrument selection.19 

Of the PROMs reviewed, the MFA and Short MFA appeared to possess challenges for use in some patient groups related to athletic training. These instruments were originally developed79,81  to assess musculoskeletal disorders in patients within the community and academic settings, which may limit their appropriateness for the athletic population. Although these scales are attractive because of their applicability to patients with a wide variety of musculoskeletal conditions,79,81  their long length, due to the inclusion of questions that pertain to functioning over the entire body, makes them less patient (eg, completion time, survey fatigue) and clinician (eg, time required to score) friendly. Further, specific questions may be considered unacceptable for some patients because of their sensitive nature (eg, items related to sexual functioning). Based on previous findings,15  the MFA and Short MFA were used by ATs, albeit at relatively low percentages (10.9% for the MFA and 13.5% for the Short MFA). In some athletic training facilities, the MFA and Short MFA may be appropriate because of factors such as patient demographics (eg, age) or greater ability and organizational support to complete longer PROMs, although an instrument that is more focused on the body region of interest may provide a similar assessment in a shorter amount of time. Nonetheless, ATs interested in using the MFA or Short MFA should be aware of these factors when deciding if these instruments are appropriate and if they fit the intended use in the target patient population.

Time is the primary factor that influences whether clinicians implement PROMs.14,15  In addition, the reality is that many ATs are relatively new to the assessment of patient outcomes as a routine component of care.14,15  One type of PROM that may be appealing for clinicians who are beginning to implement outcomes assessment into care is the single-item instrument. Single-item instruments are arguably the easiest to incorporate into patient care because they consist of 1 question and take little time to administer, complete, and score. As a result, these measures are very patient and clinician friendly. Although single-item PROMs provide a quick glimpse of health in a short amount of time, these measures have limitations. Single-item PROMs do not provide as much information related to any specific ICF health domain or HRQOL dimension as multi-item measures. Also, the wording of some single-item instruments is vague and refers to health status or injury or illness in general and not specifically to characteristics such as pain or function. Thus, the exact aspect of health that the patient is reflecting upon when completing some single-item PROMs is unknown.100  For example, the GROC instrument asks patients to compare their health between one point in time and another.100  Not only does the GROC question ask patients to calculate a difference between time points, the health construct focused on by the patient could be related to a number of different aspects of health (eg, pain, function, ability to complete roles).100  In addition, clinicians should consider whether an instrument has been modified from its original version and if those modifications are psychometrically sound. The GROC was originally developed as a 15-point scale;101  however, modifications (eg, 11-point,151  9-point,133  7-point,144  and 5-point152  scales) are available. The abbreviated versions are frequently incorporated into patient care and used in research studies, yet limited information exists regarding their development. Athletic trainers should consider the use of single-item PROMs in practice because of their versatility and ease of use, and these instruments are helpful when an AT is starting to include outcomes assessment as a routine part of patient care. However, ATs should also be aware that the brevity of these instruments results in less information gained about the patient and the health condition than from multi-item measures.

A limitation of our report is that not all of the instruments used in athletic health care were included in this review. In an effort to report on instruments used in athletic training, investigators15  conducted survey research to identify the PROMs used most often by ATs. Although we believe that the PROMs reviewed in this report have the potential to support athletic health care and are commonly used in practice, there are likely other instruments with which ATs should be familiar. Furthermore, the landscape of PROM use in athletic training is ever changing. Thus, newer instruments developed in recent years may not have been reviewed in this report. Despite these limitations, we believe that our concise summary of PROMs used by ATs is a helpful resource for the profession as a whole, given ATs' relatively low use of and general lack of knowledge regarding PROMs, which appear to hinder the overall use of PROMs in athletic health care.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the PROMs included in this report possess established and appropriate instrument essentials and clinical utility, supporting their use in patient care. With respect to the ICF health domains and HRQOL dimensions of health, the included PROMs generally focus on body structure and function as well as the physical functioning of the patient. Although that focus is not surprising and is typically helpful in caring for athletes, a sole focus on these components does not comprehensively capture the patient from a whole-person perspective. Thus, ATs with the primary goal of evaluating each patient as a whole person to support patient-centered care should consider a collection of PROMs as opposed to a single instrument. Efforts to make the use of PROMs in athletic training more routine will likely result in the development of new PROMs that are designed specifically for highly functional patients. As a result, in addition to considering the PROMs included in this report, ATs should stay abreast of newly developed PROMs.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
1
Washington
EA
,
Lipstein
SH
.
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: promoting better information, decisions, and health
.
N Engl J Med
.
2011
;
365
(
15
):
e31
.
2
Guyatt
GH
,
Ferrans
CE
,
Halyard
MY
, et al.
Exploration of the value of health-related quality-of-life information from clinical research and into clinical practice
.
Mayo Clin Proc
.
2007
;
82
(
10
):
1229
1239
.
3
Testa
MA
,
Simonson
DC
.
Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes
.
N Engl J Med
.
1996
;
334
(
13
):
835
840
.
4
Watts
JH
,
Clement
DG
,
Casanova
JS
.
Perspectives on outcomes research and practice collaboration
.
J Rehabil Outcome Meas
.
1999
;
3
(
4
):
22
32
.
5
DeLise
DC
,
Leasure
AR
.
Benchmarking: measuring the outcomes of evidence-based practice
.
Outcomes Manag Nurs Pract
.
2001
;
5
(
2
):
70
74
.
6
Snyder
AR
,
Parsons
JT
,
Valovich McLeod
TC,
Bay
RC,
Michener
LA,
Sauers
EL
.
Using disablement models and clinical outcomes assessment to enable evidence-based athletic training practice, part I: disablement models
.
J Athl Train
.
2008
;
43
(
4
):
428
436
.
7
Evans
TA
,
Lam
KC
.
Clinical outcomes assessment in sport rehabilitation
.
J Sport Rehabil
.
2011
;
20
(
1
):
8
16
.
8
Valovich McLeod TC, Snyder AR, Parsons JT, Bay RC, Michener LA, Sauers EL
.
Using disablement models and clinical outcomes assessment to enable evidence-based athletic training practice, part II: clinical outcomes assessment
.
J Athl Train
.
2008
;
43
(
4
):
437
445
.
9
National Athletic Trainers' Association
.
Athletic Training Education Competencies. 5th ed
.
Dallas, TX
:
National Athletic Trainers' Association;
2011
.
10
Johnson
SB
.
The 2009 Athletic Trainer Role Delineation Study. 6th ed
.
Omaha, NE
:
Board of Certification;
2010
.
11
Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education
.
2020 Standards for Accreditation of Professional Athletic Training Programs
.
Austin, TX
:
Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education;
2018
.
12
Nottingham
S
,
Meyer
C
,
Blackstone
B.
ICF model: a framework for athletic training practice
.
National Athletic Trainers' Association Web site
. .
13
Jette
AM
.
Outcomes research: shifting the dominant research paradigm in physical therapy
.
Phys Ther
.
1995
;
75
(
11
):
965
970
.
14
Snyder Valier
AR,
Jennings
AL,
Parsons
JT,
Vela
LI
.
Benefits of and barriers to using patient-rated outcome measures in athletic training
.
J Athl Train
.
2014
;
49
(
5
):
674
683
.
15
Lam
KC
,
Harrington
KM
,
Cameron
KL
,
Snyder Valier AR. Use of patient-reported outcome measures in athletic training: common measures, selection considerations, and practical barriers
.
J Athl Train
.
2019
;
54
(
4
):
449
458
.
16
Coulombe
BJ
,
Games
KE
,
Eberman
LE
.
The use of patient-reported outcome measures: secondary school athletic trainers' perceptions, practices, and barriers
.
J Athl Train
.
2019
;
54
(
2
):
142
151
.
17
Hankemeier
DS
,
Manspeaker
SA
.
Athletic trainers' perception of interprofessional and collaborative practice
.
Athl Train Sports Health Care
.
2017
;
9
(
5
):
203
216
.
18
Foster
A
,
Croot
L
,
Brazier
J
,
Harris
J
,
O'Cathain
A.
The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews
.
J Patient Rep Outcomes
.
2018
;
2
:
46
.
19
Snyder Valier
AR,
Lam
KC
.
Beyond the basics of clinical outcomes assessment: selecting appropriate patient-rated outcomes instruments for patient care
.
Athl Train Educ J
.
2015
;
10
(
1
):
91
100
.
20
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)
.
World Health Organization Web site
.
https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/. Published 2018. Accessed February 18, 2019
.
21
Irrgang
JJ
,
Anderson
AE
.
Development and validation of health-related quality of life measures for the knee
.
Clin Orthop Relat Res
.
2002
;
402
:
95
109
.
22
Spilker
B.
Taxonomy of quality of life
.
In
:
Spilker
B
,
Revicki
D
,
eds
.
Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed
.
Philadelphia, PA
:
Lippincott-Raven;
1996
:
1
10
.
23
Suryavanshi
J
,
Goto
R
,
Jivanelli
B
, et al.
Age-appropriate pediatric sports patient-reported outcome measures and their psychometric properties: a systematic review [published online ahead of print January 16, 2019]
.
Am J Sports Med.
doi:363546518818822.
24
Collins
NJ
,
Misra
D
,
Felson
DT
,
Crossley
KM
,
Roos
EM
.
Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS)
.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)
.
2011
;
63
(
suppl 11
):
S208
S228
.
25
Schmidt
S
,
Ferrer
M
,
Gonzalez
M
, et al.
Evaluation of shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic and standardized comparison of available evidence
.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
.
2014
;
23
(
3
):
434
444
.
26
Denegar
CR
,
Vela
LI
,
Evans
TA
.
Evidence-based sports medicine: outcomes instruments for active populations
.
Clin Sports Med
.
2008
;
27
(
3
):
339
351
,
vii
.
27
Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills: report of the National Work Group on Literacy and Health
.
J Fam Pract
.
1998
;
46
(
2
):
158
176
.
28
Weiss
BD
,
Coyne
C.
Communicating with patients who cannot read
.
N Engl J Med
.
1997
;
337
(
4
):
272
274
.
29
Snyder Valier
AR,
Welch Bacon
CE,
Lam
KC
.
Disablement model and health-related quality of life classification for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments
.
J Athl Train
.
2018
;
53
(
12
):
1206
1213
.
30
Johanson
NA
,
Liang
MH
,
Daltroy
L
,
Rudicel
S
,
Richmond
J.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change
.
J Bone Joint Surg Am
.
2004
;
86
(
5
):
902
909
.
31
Martin
RL
,
Irrgang
JJ
,
Burdett
RG
,
Conti
SF
,
Van Swearingen
JM
.
Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM)
.
Foot Ankle Int
.
2005
;
26
(
11
):
968
983
.
32
Eechaute
C
,
Vaes
P
,
Van Aerschot
L
,
Asman
S
,
Duquet
W.
The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review
.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
.
2007
;
8
:
6
.
33
Martin
RL
,
Burdett
RG
,
Irrgang
JJ
.
Development of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI)
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
1999
;
29
:
A32
A33
.
34
Hale
SA
,
Hertel
J.
Reliability and sensitivity of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index in subjects with chronic ankle instability
.
J Athl Train
.
2005
;
40
(
1
):
35
40
.
35
Irrgang
JJ
,
Anderson
AF
,
Boland
AL
, et al.
Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form
.
Am J Sports Med
.
2001
;
29
(
5
):
600
613
.
36
Irrgang
JJ
,
Anderson
AF
,
Boland
AL
, et al.
Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form
.
Am J Sports Med
.
2006
;
34
(
10
):
1567
1573
.
37
Roos
EM
,
Roos
HP
,
Lohmander
LS
,
Ekdahl
C
,
Beynnon
BD
.
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): development of a self-administered outcome measure
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
1998
;
28
(
2
):
88
96
.
38
Salavati
M
,
Akhbari
B
,
Mohammadi
F
,
Mazaheri
M
,
Khorrami
M.
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); reliability and validity in competitive athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage
.
2011
(
19
):
406
410
.
39
Binkley
JM
,
Stratford
PW
,
Lott
SA
,
Riddle
DL
.
The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application: North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Network
.
Phys Ther
.
1999
;
79
(
4
):
371
383
.
40
Klassbo
M
,
Larsson
E
,
Mannevik
E.
Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: an extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index
.
Scand J Rheumatol
.
2003
;
32
(
1
):
46
51
.
41
Nilsdotter
AK
,
Lohmander
LS
,
Klassbo
M
,
Roos
EM
.
Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS): validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement
.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
.
2003
;
4
:
10
.
42
De Groot
IB
,
Reijman
M
,
Terwee
CB
, et al.
Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score
.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage
.
2007
;
15
(
1
):
104
109
.
43
Ornetti
P
,
Parratte
S
,
Gossec
L
, et al.
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) in hip osteoarthritis patients
.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage
.
2010
;
18
(
4
):
522
529
.
44
Martin
RL
,
Kelly
BT
,
Philippon
MJ
.
Evidence of validity for the Hip Outcome Score
.
Arthroscopy
.
2006
;
22
(
12
):
1304
1311
.
45
Martin
RL
,
Philippon
MJ
.
Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the Hip Outcome Score
.
Arthroscopy
.
2008
;
24
(
6
):
676
682
.
46
Greenough
CG
,
Fraser
RD
.
Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
1992
;
17
(
1
):
36
41
.
47
Holt
AE
,
Shaw
NJ
,
Shetty
A
,
Greenough
CG
.
The reliability of the Low Back Outcome Score for back pain
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2002
;
27
(
2
):
206
210
.
48
Fairbank
JC
,
Pynsent
PB
.
The Oswestry Disability Index
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2000
;
25
(
22
):
2940
2952
.
49
Roland
M
,
Fairbank
J.
The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2000
;
25
(
24
):
3115
3124
.
50
Davidson
M
,
Keating
JL
.
A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness
.
Phys Ther
.
2002
;
82
(
1
):
8
24
.
51
Muller
U
,
Duetz
MS
,
Roeder
C
,
Greenough
CG
.
Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain: part 1. Validation
.
Eur Spine J
.
2004
;
13
(
4
):
301
313
.
52
Davidson
M
,
Keating
J.
Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ)
.
Aust J Physiother
.
2005
;
51
(
4
):
270
.
53
Hudak
P
,
Amadio
PC
,
Bombardier
C
;
Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head)
.
Am J Ind Med
.
1996
;
29
(
6
):
602
608
.
54
Mahabier
KC
,
den Hartog
D
,
Theyskens
N
,
Verhofstad
MHJ
,
Van Lieshout
EMM
;
HUMMER Trial Investigators. Reliability, validity, responsiveness, and minimal important change of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Constant-Murley scores in patients with a humeral shaft fracture
.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
.
2017
;
26
(
1
):
e1
e12
.
55
Beaton
DE
,
Katz
JN
,
Fossel
AH
,
Wright
JG
,
Tarasuk
V
,
Bombardier
C.
Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and the responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity
.
J Hand Ther
.
2001
;
14
(
2
):
128
146
.
56
Franchignoni
F
,
Vercelli
S
,
Giordano
A
,
Sartorio
F
,
Bravini
E
,
Ferriero
G.
Minimal clinically important difference of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH)
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
2014
;
44
(
1
):
30
39
.
57
Gummesson
C
,
Ward
MM
,
Atroshi
I.
The shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH
.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
.
2006
;
7
:
44
.
58
Hsu
JE
,
Nacke
E
,
Park
MJ
,
Sennett
BJ
,
Huffman
GR
.
The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire in intercollegiate athletes: validity limited by ceiling effect
.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
.
2010
;
19
(
3
):
349
354
.
59
Schmitt
JS
,
Di Fabio
RP
.
Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria
.
J Clin Epidemiol
.
2004
;
57
(
10
):
1008
1018
.
60
van Kampen
DA
,
Willems
WJ
,
van Beers
LW
,
Castelein
RM
,
Scholtes
VA
,
Terwee
CB
.
Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
.
J Orthop Surg Res
.
2013
;
8
:
40
.
61
Michener
LA
,
Snyder Valier
AR,
McClure
PW
.
Defining substantial clinical benefit for patient-rated outcome tools for shoulder impingement syndrome
.
Arch Phys Med Rehab
.
2013
;
94
(
4
):
725
730
.
62
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
.
63
Mintken
PE
,
Glynn
P
,
Cleland
JA
.
Psychometric properties of the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with shoulder pain
.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
.
2009
;
18
(
6
):
920
926
.
64
Polson
K
,
Reid
D
,
McNair
PJ
,
Larmer
P.
Responsiveness, minimal important difference and minimal detectable change scores of the shortened Disability Arm Shoulder Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire
.
Man Ther
.
2010
;
15
(
4
):
404
407
.
65
Stratford
PW
,
Binkley
JM
,
Stratford
DM
.
Development and initial validation of the Upper Extremity Functional Index
.
Physiother Can
.
2001
;
52
:
259
267
.
66
Chesworth
BM
,
Hamilton
CB
,
Walton
DM
, et al.
Reliability and validity of two versions of the Upper Extremity Functional Index
.
Physiother Can
.
2014
;
66
(
3
):
243
253
.
67
Vernon
H
,
Mior
S.
The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
1991
;
14
(
7
):
409
415
.
68
Westaway
MD
,
Stratford
PW
,
Binkley
JM
.
The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
1998
;
27
(
5
):
331
338
.
69
Cleland
JA
,
Fritz
JM
,
Whitman
JM
,
Palmer
JA
.
The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and Patient Specific Functional Scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2006
;
31
(
5
):
598
602
.
70
Kosinski
M
,
Bayliss
MS
,
Bjorner
JB
, et al.
A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache effect: the HIT-6
.
Qual Life Res
.
2003
;
12
(
8
):
963
974
.
71
Kawata
AK
,
Coeytaux
RR
,
DeVellis
RF
,
Finkel
AG
,
Mann
JD
,
Kahn
K.
Psychometric properties of the HIT-6 among patients in a headache-specialty practice
.
Headache
.
2005
;
45
(
6
):
638
643
.
72
Smelt
AF
,
Assendelft
WJ
,
Terwee
CB
,
Ferrari
MD
,
Blom
JW
.
What is a clinically relevant change on the HIT-6 questionnaire? An estimation in a primary-care population of migraine patients
.
Cephalalgia
.
2014
;
34
(
1
):
29
36
.
73
Castien
RF
,
Blankenstein
AH
,
Windt
DA
,
Dekker
J.
Minimal clinically important change on the Headache Impact Test-6 questionnaire in patients with chronic tension-type headache
.
Cephalalgia
.
2012
;
32
(
9
):
710
714
.
74
Grove
JR
,
Prapavessis
H.
Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of an Abbreviated Profile of Mood States
.
Int J Sport Psychol
.
1992
;
23
(
2
):
93
109
.
75
Jacobson
GP
,
Newman
CW
.
The development of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory
.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
.
1990
;
116
(
4
):
424
427
.
76
Enloe
LJ
,
Shields
RK
.
Evaluation of health-related quality of life in individuals with vestibular disease using disease-specific and general outcome measures
.
Phys Ther
.
1997
;
77
(
9
):
890
903
.
77
Vela
LI
,
Denegar
CR
.
Transient disablement in the physically active with musculoskeletal injuries, part I: a descriptive model
.
J Athl Train
.
2010
;
45
(
6
):
615
629
.
78
Vela
LI
,
Denegar
CR
.
The Disablement in the Physically Active Scale, part II: the psychometric properties of an outcomes scale for musculoskeletal injuries
.
J Athl Train
.
2010
;
45
(
6
):
630
641
.
79
Martin
DP
,
Engelberg
R
,
Agel
J
,
Snapp
D
,
Swiontkowski
MF
.
Development of a musculoskeletal extremity health status instrument: the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment instrument
.
J Orthop Res
.
1996
(
14
):
173
181
.
80
Bouffard
J
,
Bertrant-Charette
M
,
Roy
JS
.
Psychometric properties of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: a systematic review
.
Clin Rehabil
.
2016
;
30
(
4
):
393
409
.
81
Swiontkowski
MF
,
Engelberg
R
,
Martin
DP
,
Agel
J.
Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness
.
J Bone Joint Surg Am
.
1999
;
81
(
9
):
1245
1260
.
82
Varni
JW
,
Seid
M
,
Rode
CA
.
The PedsQL: measurement model for the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory
.
Med Care
.
1999
;
37
(
2
):
126
139
.
83
Varni
JW
,
Seid
M
,
Kurtin
PS
.
PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations
.
Med Care
.
2001
;
39
(
8
):
800
812
.
84
Varni
JW
,
Burwinkle
TM
,
Seid
M
,
Skarr
D.
The PedsQL 4.0 as a pediatric population health measure: feasibility, reliability, and validity
.
Ambul Pediatr
.
2003
;
3
(
6
):
329
341
.
85
Varni
JW
,
Burwinkle
TM
,
Seid
M.
The PedsQL as a pediatric patient-reported outcome: reliability and validity of the PedsQL Measurement Model in 25,000 children
.
Expert Rev Phamacoecon Outcomes Res
.
2005
;
5
(
6
):
705
719
.
86
Varni
JW
,
Burwinkle
TM
,
Seid
M.
The PedsQL 4.0 as a school population health measure: feasibility, reliability, and validity
.
Qual Life Res
.
2006
;
15
(
2
):
203
215
.
87
Ware
JE
Jr
,
Sherbourne
CD
.
The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection
.
Med Care
.
1992
;
30
(
6
):
473
483
.
88
Ware
JE
Jr
,
Snow
KK
,
Kosinski
M
,
Gandek
B.
SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide
.
Boston, MA
:
Health Institute, New England Medical Center;
1993
.
89
McHorney
CA
,
Ware
JE
Jr
,
Raczek
AE
.
The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs
.
Med Care
.
1993
;
31
(
3
):
247
263
.
90
Jenkinson
C
,
Coulter
A
,
Wright
L.
Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age
.
BMJ
.
1993
;
306
(
6890
):
1437
1440
.
91
Jenkinson
C
,
Wright
L
,
Coulter
A.
Criterion validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample
.
Qual Life Res
.
1994
;
3
(
1
):
7
12
.
92
Ware
J
Jr
,
Kosinski
M
,
Keller
SD. A
12-item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity
.
Med Care
.
1996
;
34
(
3
):
220
233
.
93
Luo
X
,
George
ML
,
Kakouras
I
, et al.
Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Short Form 12-Item Survey (SF-12) in patients with back pain
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2003
;
28
(
15
):
1739
1745
.
94
Herr
KA
,
Spratt
K
,
Mobily
PR
,
Richardson
G.
Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults
.
Clin J Pain
.
2004
;
20
(
4
):
207
219
.
95
Bijur
PE
,
Latimer
CT
,
Gallagher
EJ
.
Validation of a verbally administered numerical rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department
.
Acad Emerg Med
.
2003
;
10
(
4
):
390
392
.
96
Kahl
C
,
Cleland
JA
.
Visual analogue scale, numeric pain rating scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire: an overview of psychometric properties
.
Phys Ther Rev
.
2013
;
10
(
2
):
123
128
.
97
Spadoni
GF
,
Stratford
PW
,
Solomon
PE
,
Wishart
LR
.
The evaluation of change in pain intensity: a comparison of the P4 and single-item numeric pain rating scales
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
2004
;
34
(
4
):
187
193
.
98
Michener
LA
.
Patient- and clinician-rated outcome measures for clinical decision making in rehabilitation
.
J Sport Rehabil
.
2011
;
20
(
1
):
37
45
.
99
Downie
WW
,
Leatham
PA
,
Rhind
VM
,
Wright
V
,
Branco
JA
,
Anderson
JA
.
Studies with pain rating scales
.
Ann Rheum Dis
.
1978
;
37
(
4
):
378
781
.
100
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
(
3
):
163
170
.
101
Jaeschke
R
,
Singer
J
,
Guyatt
GH
.
Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference
.
Control Clin Trials
.
1989
;
10
(
4
):
407
415
.
102
Stratford
PW
,
Binkley
J
,
Solomon
P
,
Gill
C
,
Finch
E.
Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain
.
Phys Ther
.
1994
;
74
(
6
):
528
533
.
103
Watson
CJ
,
Propps
M
,
Ratner
J
,
Zeigler
DL
,
Horton
P
,
Smith
SS
.
Reliability and responsiveness of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and Anterior Knee Pain Scale in patients with anterior knee pain
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
2005
;
35
(
3
):
136
146
.
104
Stratford
P
,
Gill
C
,
Westaway
M
,
Binkley
J.
Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure
.
Physiother Can
.
1995
;
47
(
4
):
258
263
.
105
Hefford
C
,
Abbott
JH
,
Arnold
R
,
Baxter
GD
.
The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: validity, reliability, and responsiveness in patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal problems
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
2012
;
42
(
2
):
56
65
.
106
Chatman
AB
,
Hyams
SP
,
Neel
JM
, et al.
The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction
.
Phys Ther
.
1997
;
77
(
8
):
820
829
.
107
Riskowski
JL
,
Hagedorn
TJ
,
Hannan
MT
.
Measures of foot function, foot health, and foot pain: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Lower Limb Outcomes Assessment: Foot and Ankle Module (AAOS-FAM), Bristol Foot Score (BFS), Revised Foot Function Index (FFI-R), Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ), Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (MFPDI), Podiatric Health Questionnaire (PHQ), and Rowan Foot Pain Assessment (ROFPAQ)
.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)
.
2011
;
63
(
suppl 11
):
S229
S239
.
108
Vianin
M.
Pyschometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disability Index
.
J Chiropr Med
.
2008
;
7
(
4
):
161
163
.
109
Nilsdotter
A
,
Bremander
A.
Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire
.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)
.
2011
;
63
(
suppl 11
):
S200
S207
.
110
Stevenson
JD
,
Jaiswal
A
,
Gregory
JJ
,
Mangham
DC
,
Cribb
G
,
Cool
P.
Diffuse pigmented villonodular synovitis (diffuse-type giant cell tumour) of the foot and ankle
.
Bone Joint J
.
2013
;
95-B
(
3
):
384
390
.
111
Kahraman
M
,
Misir
A
,
Kizkapan
TB
,
Ozcamdalli
M
,
Uzun
E
,
Mutlu
M.
The long-term outcomes following the application of intralesional epidermal growth factor in patients with diabetic foot ulcers
.
J Foot Ankle Surg
.
2019
;
58
(
2
):
282
287
.
112
Martin
RL
,
Hutt
DM
,
Wukich
DK
.
Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in diabetes mellitus
.
Foot Ankle Int
.
2009
;
30
(
4
):
297
302
.
113
Martin
RL
,
Irrgang
JJ
.
A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
2007
;
37
(
2
):
72
84
.
114
Hubbard
TJ
,
Hicks-Little
C
,
Cordova
M.
Mechanical and sensorimotor implications with ankle osteoarthritis
.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
.
2009
;
90
(
7
):
1136
1141
.
115
Naqvi
GA
,
Cunningham
P
,
Lynch
B
,
Galvin
R
,
Awan
N.
Fixation of ankle syndesmotic injuries: comparison of tightrope fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy of syndesmotic reduction
.
Am J Sports Med
.
2012
;
40
(
12
):
2828
2835
.
116
Seker
A
,
Kara
A
,
Armagan
R
,
Oc
Y
,
Varol
A
,
Sezer
HB
.
Reconstruction of neglected Achilles tendon ruptures with gastrocnemius flaps: excellent results in long-term follow-up
.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
.
2016
;
136
(
10
):
1417
1423
.
117
Singh
P
,
Madanipour
S
,
Bhamra
J
,
Gill
I.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injections for plantar fasciopathy
.
Int Orthop
.
2017
;
41
(
6
):
1169
1181
.
118
Oak
SR
,
O'Rourke
C
,
Strnad
G
, et al.
Statistical comparison of the pediatric versus adult IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form in adolescents
.
Am J Sports Med
.
2015
;
43
(
9
):
2216
2221
.
119
Roos
EM
,
Toksvig-Larsen
S.
Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement
.
Health Qual Life Outcomes
.
2003
;
1
:
17
.
120
Rathleff
MS
,
Roos
EM
,
Olesen
JL
,
Rasmussen
S.
Early intervention for adolescents for patellofemoral pain syndrome—a pragmatic cluster randomised trial
.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
.
2012
;
13
:
9
.
121
Verheijde
JL
,
White
F
,
Tompkins
J
, et al.
Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale in individuals affected by stroke
.
PM R
.
2013
;
5
(
12
):
1019
1025
.
122
Kemp
JL
,
Collins
NJ
,
Roos
EM
,
Crossley
KM
.
Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for hip arthroscopic surgery
.
Am J Sports Med
.
2013
;
41
(
9
):
2065
2073
.
123
Chahal
J
,
Van Thiel
GS
,
Mather
RC
III
, et al.
The patient acceptable symptomatic state for the Modified Harris Hip Score and Hip Outcome Score among patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement
.
Am J Sports Med
.
2015
;
43
(
8
):
1844
1849
.
124
Tafazal
SI
,
Sell
PJ
.
Outcome scores in spinal surgery quantified: excellent, good, fair and poor in terms of patient-completed tools
.
Eur Spine J
.
2006
;
15
(
11
):
1653
1660
.
125
Ostlie
K
,
Franklin
RJ
,
Skjeldal
OH
,
Skrondal
A
,
Magnus
P.
Assessing physical function in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees by combining the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Outcome Questionnaire and clinical examination
.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
.
2011
;
92
(
10
):
1636
1645
.
126
Wu
A
,
Edgar
DW
,
Wood
FM
.
The QuickDASH is an appropriate tool for measuring the quality of recovery after upper limb burn injury
.
Burns
.
2007
;
33
(
7
):
843
849
.
127
Resnik
L
,
Borgia
M.
Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the QuickDASH in patients with upper limb amputation
.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
.
2015
;
96
(
9
):
1676
1683
.
128
Stevenson
T
,
Thalman
L.
A modified constraint-induced movement therapy regimen for individuals with upper extremity hemiplegia
.
Can J Occup Ther
.
2007
;
74
(
2
):
115
124
.
129
Binkley
JM
,
Stratford
P
,
Kirkpatrick
S
,
Farley
CR
,
Okoli
J
,
Gabram
S.
Estimating the reliability and validity of the Upper Extremity Functional Index in women after breast cancer surgery
.
Clin Breast Cancer
.
2018
;
18
(
6
):
e1261
e1267
.
130
Olivo
SA
,
Fuentes
J
,
Major
PW
,
Warren
S
,
Thie
NM
,
Magee
DJ
.
The association between neck disability and jaw disability
.
J Oral Rehabil
.
2010
;
37
(
9
):
670
679
.
131
Cobar
AG
,
Borromeo
MC
,
Agcaoili
JK
,
Rodil
AM
.
Acute effect of birdwatching on mood states of senior high school students in the physical education setting
.
Sci Mov Health
.
2017
;
17
(
1
):
18
25
.
132
Schneider
KJ
,
Meeuwisse
WH
,
Nettel-Aguirre
A
, et al.
Cervicovestibular rehabilitation in sport-related concussion: a randomised controlled trial
.
Br J Sports Med
.
2014
;
48
(
17
):
1294
1298
.
133
Snyder Valier
AR,
Welch Bacon
CE,
Bay
RC,
Houston
MN,
Valovich McLeod
TC
.
Validity of single-item patient-rated outcomes in adolescent football athletes with concussion
.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
.
2016
;
97
(
7
):
1202
1205
.
134
Horn
KK
,
Jennings
S
,
Richardson
G
,
Vliet
DV
,
Hefford
C
,
Abbott
JH
.
The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure
.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
.
2012
;
42
(
1
):
30
42
.
135
Houston
MN
,
Hoch
JM
,
Van Lunen
BL
,
Hoch
MC
.
The development of summary components for the Disablement in the Physically Active Scale in collegiate athletes
.
Qual Life Res
.
2015
;
24
(
11
):
2657
2662
.
136
Engelberg
R
,
Martin
DP
,
Agel
J
,
Swiontkowski
MF
.
Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: reference values for patient and non-patient samples
.
J Orthop Res
.
2005
;
17
(
1
):
101
109
.
137
Wickman
AM
,
Pinzur
MS
,
Kadanoff
R
,
Juknelis
D.
Health-related quality of life for patients with rheumatoid arthritis foot involvement
.
Foot Ankle Int
.
2004
;
25
(
1
):
19
26
.
138
Wegener
ST
,
Mackenzie
EJ
,
Ephraim
P
,
Ehde
D
,
Williams
R.
Self-management improves outcomes in persons with limb loss
.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
.
2009
;
90
(
3
):
373
380
.
139
Snyder Valier
AR,
Swank
EM,
Lam
KC,
Hansen
ML,
Valovich McLeod
TC
.
Comparison of patient and proxy reporting of health-related quality of life in adolescent athletes who suffer a sports-related injury and require orthopedic consultation
.
J Sport Rehabil
.
2013
;
22
(
4
):
248
253
.
140
Vassilyadi
M
,
Macartney
G
,
Barrowman
N
,
Anderson
P
,
Dube
K.
Symptom experience and quality of life in children after sport-related head injuries: a cross-sectional study
.
Pediatr Neurosurg
.
2015
;
50
(
4
):
196
203
.
141
Snyder Valier
AR,
Welch Bacon
CE,
Bay
RC,
Molzen
E,
Lam
KC,
Valovich McLeod
TC
.
Reference values for the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and the Multidimensional Fatigue Scale in adolescent athletes by sport and sex
.
Am J Sports Med
.
2017
;
45
(
12
):
2723
2729
.
142
Alberta
FG
,
El Attrache
NS
,
Bissell
S
, et al.
The development and validation of a functional assessment tool for the upper extremity in the overhead athlete
.
Am J Sports Med
.
2010
;
38
(
5
):
903
911
.
143
Sauers
E
,
Bay
RC
,
Snyder Valier
AR,
Ellery
T,
Huxel Bliven
KC
.
The Functional Arm Scale for Throwers (FAST), part I: the design and development of an upper extremity region-specific and population-specific patient-reported outcome scale for throwing athletes
.
Orthop J Sports Med
.
2017
;
5
(
3
):
2325967117698455
.
144
Huxel Bliven
KC,
Snyder Valier
AR,
Bay
RC,
Sauers
EL
.
The Functional Arm Scale for Throwers (FAST) part II: reliability and validity of an upper extremity region-specific and population-specific patient-reported outcome scale for throwing athletes
.
Orthop J Sports Med
.
2017
;
5
(
4
):
2325967117700019
.
145
Dover
G
,
Amar
V.
Development and validation of the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire
.
J Athl Train
.
2015
;
50
(
6
):
634
642
.
146
Drake
SM
,
Krabak
B
,
Edelman
GT
,
Pounders
E
,
Robinson
S
,
Wixson
B.
Development and validation of a Swimmer's Functional Pain Scale
.
J Swim Res
.
2015
;
23
:
21
32
.
147
Lam
KC
,
Snyder Valier
AR,
Bay
RC,
McLeod
TC
.
A unique patient population? Health-related quality of life in adolescent athletes versus general, healthy adolescent individuals
.
J Athl Train
.
2013
;
48
(
2
):
233
241
.
148
McAllister
DR
,
Motamedi
AR
,
Hame
SL
,
Shapiro
MS
,
Dorey
FJ
.
Quality of life assessment in elite collegiate athletes
.
Am J Sports Med
.
2001
;
29
(
6
):
806
810
.
149
Snyder Valier
AR,
Martinez
JC,
Bay
RC,
Parsons
JT,
Sauers
EL,
Valovich McLeod
TC
.
Health-related quality of life differs between adolescent athletes and adolescent nonathletes
.
J Sport Rehabil
.
2010
;
19
(
3
):
237
248
.
150
Fraser
JJ
,
Hertel
J.
Preinjury to postinjury disablement and recovery after a lateral ankle sprain: a case report
.
J Athl Train
.
2018
;
53
(
8
):
776
781
.
151
Ferreira
ML
,
Ferreira
PH
,
Latimer
J
, et al.
Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial
.
Pain
.
2007
;
131
(
1–2
):
31
37
.
152
Crossley
KM
,
Bennell
KL
,
Cowan
SM
,
Green
S.
Analysis of outcome measures for persons with patellofemoral pain: which are reliable and valid?
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
.
2004
;
85
(
5
):
815
822
.