↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A comparison of the Oxford shoulder score and shoulder pain and disability index: factor structure in the context of a large randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Patient related outcome measures, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
A comparison of the Oxford shoulder score and shoulder pain and disability index: factor structure in the context of a large randomized controlled trial
Published in
Patient related outcome measures, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/prom.s115488
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jill Dawson, Kristina K Harris, Helen Doll, Ray Fitzpatrick, Andrew Carr

Abstract

To explore and compare the factor structure of the 12-item Oxford shoulder score (OSS) and 13-item shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of data from 660 patients attending 46 hospitals in the UK. Complete OSS and SPADI data were available for 648 (98.2%) and 628 (95.2%) participants, respectively. For both instruments, either one or two factors were indicated, depending on the extraction method. On EFA, most OSS items loaded saliently on either of two "Pain" (4 items) and "Function" (8 items) factors, although some items cross-loaded. Cronbach's alphas were 0.75, 0.90, and 0.91 for "Pain" and "Function" subscales, and all 12 OSS items, respectively. CFA suggested marginally better fit for two factors, with neither one- nor two-factor models rejected. EFA indicated two factors for the SPADI, with three of the eight "Disability" items contributing to an 8-item "Pain factor", with 2 items within the 5-item "Disability factor" cross-loading. Cronbach's alpha was 0.87 and 0.93 for the original 5- and 8-item pain and disability scales; 0.94 for all 13 SPADI items, respectively. CFA suggested marginally better fit for the two-factor (original conceptualization) model of the SPADI, with neither one- nor two-factor models rejected. EFA and CFA demonstrated that, in addition to single summary scales usage, separate information on pain and self-reported disability/function can be extracted in a meaningful way, as subscales, from both the OSS and the SPADI. This information can help researchers in choosing primary study endpoints appropriately.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Sports and Recreations 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 18 45%
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 03 December 2021.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#93
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,512
of 317,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 317,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.