Feasibility, Reliability, and Validity of Shoulder Performance Activity Test in Patients with Shoulder Pain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55735/2f26wb38Keywords:
Functional assessment , Reliability , Shoulder pain , Shoulder performance activity test , Unilateral shoulder dysfunction, ValidityAbstract
Background: Shoulder pain is a common phenomenon, and it affects daily activities and the quality of life of people. The shoulder performance and assessment tool is a simple activity-based test for shoulder function. However, its reliability, validity, and feasibility have not been well studied in adults in Pakistan. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the shoulder performance activity test in adults with unilateral shoulder pain. Methodology: A diagnostic study with a mixed-method, cross-sectional design was conducted using purposive sampling. Data were collected from Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. About 130 participants with the shoulder pain group, aged 30 to 60 years, with unilateral pain for more than three months, and resting pain ≥2/10. The no-pain group consisted of individuals aged 30–60 years who did not experience shoulder pain at rest or during activity. Patients with bilateral shoulder pain, neurological symptoms, central pathology, contraindication to arm use, and pain in other upper limb joints were excluded. All participants completed one data collection session to assess demographics, patient-reported function, and the shoulder performance activity test. A subgroup with shoulder pain participated in a second session within 7 days to assess the reliability of the shoulder performance activity test. All participants provided demographics, history, and diagnosis of their current shoulder disorder. Shoulder pain was measured with numerical pain rating scale, and self-reported function was measured via the shoulder pain and disability index. To examine differences in performance across the three pain groups, a one-way ANOVA was conducted for each task. Where significant effects were found, post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons. Results: Reliability was excellent (ICC 0.86–0.97; total score ICC 0.94). Participants with moderate or severe pain had higher scores than those with low or no pain. Scores were also higher in the affected shoulder, supporting construct validity. Conclusion: The shoulder performance activity test is a reliable, valid, and practical tool for assessing shoulder pain and function. It distinguishes pain severity and side-to-side differences, shows high completion rates, and can aid clinicians in diagnosis, treatment planning, and monitoring functional progress in patients with shoulder pain.
Downloads
References
1. Hodgetts CJ, Leboeuf-Yde C, Beynon A, Walker BF. Shoulder pain prevalence by age and within occupational groups: a systematic review. Archives of Physiotherapy 2021; 11(1): 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-021-00119-w
2. Lucas J, Van Doorn P, Hegedus E, et al. A
systematic review of the global prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2022; 23(1): 1073.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05973-8
3. Crookes T, Wall C, Byrnes J, et al. Chronic shoulder pain. Australian Journal of General Practice 2023; 52(11): 753–758.
https://doi.org/10.31128/AJGP-04-23-6790
4. Babatunde OM, Kim HM, Desandis BA, et al. A physician’s guide to the physical examination of the shoulder. The Physician and Sports Medicine 2012; 40(1): 91–101.
https://doi.org/10.3810/psm.2012.02.1955
5. Bento TPF, Genebra CVdS, Cornélio GP, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with shoulder pain in the general population: a cross-sectional study. Fisioterapia e Pesquisa 2019; 26(4): 401–6.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-2950/18026626042019
6. Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Lewis J. The shoulder: theory and practice: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2022.
7. Walker-Bone K, van der Windt DA. Shoulder
pain - where are we now? Current Treatment Options in Rheumatology 2021; 7(4): 285–306.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40674-021-00184-z
8. Bolink S, Grimm B, Heyligers I. Patient-reported outcome measures versus inertial performance-based outcome measures: a prospective study in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. The Knee 2015; 22(6):
618–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.04.002
9. MacDermid JC, Ghobrial M, Quirion KB, et al. Validation of a new test that assesses functional performance of the upper extremity and neck (FIT-HaNSA) in patients with shoulder pathology. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007; 8: 42.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-8-42
10. Hollinshead RM, Mohtadi NG, Vande Guchte RA, Wadey VM. Two 6-year follow-up studies of large and massive rotator cuff tears: comparison of outcome measures. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2000; 9(5): 373–81.
https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2000.108389
11. Pellekooren S, Ostelo R, Pool A, et al. Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures of satisfaction with primary care for musculoskeletal complaints: a systematic review. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 2021; 51(3): 94–102.
https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2021.9788
12. Johansson FR, Skillgate E, Lapauw ML, et al. Measuring eccentric strength of the shoulder external rotators using a handheld dynamometer: reliability and validity. Journal of Athletic Training 2015; 50(7): 719–25.
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.72
13. Sørensen L, Oestergaard LG, van Tulder M, Petersen AK. Measurement properties of isokinetic dynamometry for assessment of shoulder muscle strength: a systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2021; 102(3): 510–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.06.005
14. Chesworth BM, Hamilton CB, Walton DM, et al. Reliability and validity of two versions of the upper extremity functional index. Physiotherapie Canada 2014; 66(3): 243–53.
https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2013-45
15. Sousa CO, Nascimento JDS, Pozzi F, et al. Shoulder performance activity test (SPAT) for people with shoulder pain: feasibility, reliability, and validity. Physical Therapy 2023; 103(3): pzad006.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzad006
16. Greenberg DL. Evaluation and treatment of shoulder pain. Medical Clinics 2014; 98(3): 487–504.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2014.01.016
17. Gismervik SØ, Drogset JO, Granviken F, et al. Physical examination tests of the shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2017; 18(1): 41.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1400-0
18. Michener LA, Snyder AR, Leggin BG. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain and the effect of surgical status. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 2011; 20(1): 115–28.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.20.1.115
19. KC, S, Sharma S, Ginn KA, Reed D. Measurement properties of translated versions of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation 2021; 35(3): 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215520963199
20. Frasie A, Bertrand-Charette M, Compagnat M, et al. Validation of the Borg CR10 scale for the evaluation of shoulder perceived fatigue during work-related tasks. Applied Ergonomics 2024; 116: 104200.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rabia Saher, Munsfa Zafar (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
