IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0206347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Rotator Cuff Quality of Life Index (RC-QOL) in patients with rotator cuff disorders

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Wang
  • Chen Zhang
  • Lin Cui
  • Qing-yun Xie
  • Zhen-yu Jia
  • Wei Zheng

Abstract

Background: The Rotator Cuff Quality of Life Index (RC-QOL) is a scale designed to evaluate the impact of rotator cuff (RC) disorders on the general quality of life of patients. Our study aims to adapt the RC-QOL into Chinese and to assess its reliability, validity and responsiveness in Chinese patients with RC disorders. Methods: First, we developed the Chinese version of RC-QOL (C-RC-QOL) through a five-step procedure. Next, the recruited patients gave three rounds of responses to the C-RC-QOL, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) and Oxford Shoulder Score scales (OSS). Then, we calculated the Cronbach’s alpha, standard error of measurement (SEM), minimally detectable change (MDC), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the C-RC-QOL respectively. The unidimensionality of each subscale was assessed by principal component analysis (PCA) of the residuals. Results: Overall, 124 patients with RC disorders successfully completed the first two rounds of the scales, and 108 patients completed the last round of the scales. Good or excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.953) was found in the overall scale and subscales of the C-RC-QOL, and good or excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.854) was found as well. The SEM and MDC values of the C-RC-QOL were 4.6 and 12.8 respectively. Moderate, good or excellent correlations (r = 0.452–0.839) were obtained between the physical subscales of the C-RC-QOL and the OSS, as well as the physical subscales of the SF-36; similar results were obtained between the emotion subscale of the C-RC-QOL and the mental subscales of the SF-36 (r = 0.490–0.733), which, illustrated the good validity of the C-RC-QOL. In addition, high responsiveness was observed in the overall scale and subscales of the C-RC-QOL (ES = 1.77, SRM = 1.98). The unidimensionality of five subscales was respected according to PCA of the residuals. Conclusions: The C-RC-QOL scale is reliable, valid and responsive for the evaluation of Chinese-speaking patients with RC disorders and it would be an effective instrument.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Wang & Chen Zhang & Lin Cui & Qing-yun Xie & Zhen-yu Jia & Wei Zheng, 2018. "Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Rotator Cuff Quality of Life Index (RC-QOL) in patients with rotator cuff disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0206347
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206347
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206347&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0206347?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0206347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.