Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Psychometric properties of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score

  • Original Article - Validation Studies
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To translate and culturally adapt the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), a widely used instrument for evaluating disability associated with elbow injuries, into Turkish (MEPS-T) and to determine psychometric properties of the translated version. The MEPS was translated into Turkish using published methodological guidelines. The measurement properties of the MEPS-T (construct validity and floor and ceiling effects) were tested in 91 patients with elbow pathology. The reproducibility of the MEPS-T was tested in 59 patients over 7–14 days. The responsiveness of the MEPS-T was tested in a subgroup of 46 patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis and who received conservative treatment for 6 weeks. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to estimate the test–retest reliability. The construct validity was analyzed with the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Effect size (ES) was used to assess the responsiveness. The distribution of floor and ceiling effects was determined. The MEPS-T showed very good test–retest reliability (ICC 0.89). The correlation coefficients between the MEPS-T and DASH and VAS were −0.61 and −0.53, respectively (p < 0.001). The highest correlations were between the MEPS-T and the mental component summary (r = 0.47, p = 0.001) and role emotional (r = 0.45, p = 0.001). The MEPS-T ES, 0.50, was moderate (95 % CI 0.33–0.62). We observed no ceiling or floor effects. The MEPS-T represents a valid, reliable and moderately responsive instrument for evaluating patients with elbow disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Longo UG, Franceschi F, Loppini M, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2008) Rating systems for evaluation of the elbow. Br Med Bull 87:131–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Morrey BF, An KN (1993) Functional evaluation of the elbow. In: Morrey BF (ed) The elbow and its disorders. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 74–83

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, Fitzpatrick R, Little C, Rees J et al (2008) The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:466–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Macdermid J (2005) Update: the patient-rated forearm evaluation questionnaire is now the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation. J Hand Ther 18:407–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 29:602–608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey [SF-36] Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3186–3191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Duger T, Yakut E, Oksuz C (2006) The reliability and validity of Turkish version of DASH questionnaire. Physiother Rehabil 17:99–107

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kocyigit H, Aydemir O, Fisek G (1999) Reliability and validity of Turkish version of short form SF-36. Med Treat 12:102–106

    Google Scholar 

  11. Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF (2003) A comparison of two time intervals for test–retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 56:730–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kane RL (1997) Outcome measures. Understanding health care outcomes research. Aspen, Gaithersburg, pp 17–18

    Google Scholar 

  13. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM (2003) Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1137–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Irrgang JJ, Marx RG (2007) Clinical outcomes in sport and exercise physical therapies. In: Kolt GS, Synder-Mackler L (eds) Physical therapies in sports and exercise. Elsevier, Edinburgh, pp 206–219

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cusick MC, Bonnaig NS, Azar FM, Mauck BM, Smith RA (2014) Throckmorton TW2. Accuracy and reliability of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. J Hand Surg Am 39:1146–1150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. de Haan J, Goei H, Schep NW, Tuinebreijer WE, Patka P, den Hartog D (2011) The reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the Oxford elbow score. J Orthop Surg Res 30(6):39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schneeberger AG, Kösters MC, Steens W (2014) Comparison of the subjective elbow value and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:308–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Raeissadat SA, Rayegani SM, Hassanabadi H, Rahimi R, Sedighipour L, Rostami K (2014) Is Platelet-rich plasma superior to whole blood in the management of chronic tennis elbow: one year randomized clinical trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 18(6):12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dzugan SS, Savoie FH 3rd, Field LD, O’Brien MJ, You Z (2012) Acute radial ulno-humeral ligament injury in patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis: an observational report. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:1651–1655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim JW, Chun CH, Shim DM, Kim TK, Kweon SH, Kang HJ, Bae KH (2011) Arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis: comparison of the outcome of ECRB release with and without decortication. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1178–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Garg R, Adamson GJ, Dawson PA, Shankwiler JA, Pink MM (2010) A prospective randomized study comparing a forearm strap brace versus a wrist splint for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:508–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dawson J, Doll H, Boller I, Fitzpatrick R, Little C, Rees J, Carr A (2012) Specificity and responsiveness of patient-reported and clinician-rated outcome measures in the context of elbow surgery, comparing patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:652–658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Nilgun Turkel and Gulten Cetik for their excellent work during data collection.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul University, 34740, Bakırköy, Istanbul, Turkey

    Derya Celik

Authors
  1. Derya Celik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derya Celik.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Mayo Dirsek Performans Skoru
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Celik, D. Psychometric properties of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Rheumatol Int 35, 1015–1020 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-014-3201-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-014-3201-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation