Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jan;6(1):9-14.
doi: 10.4103/0973-6042.94307.

Validation of the Stanmore percentage of normal shoulder assessment

Ali M Noorani  1 , David J S Roberts, Alex A Malone, Tim S Waters, Anju Jaggi, Simon M Lambert, Ian Bayley
Affiliations

Validation of the Stanmore percentage of normal shoulder assessment

Ali M Noorani et al. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2012 Jan.

Abstract

Background and purpose: The Stanmore Percentage of Normal Shoulder Assessment (SPONSA) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). The score assesses pain, range of movement, strength, stability and function of the shoulder. The aim of this work was to formally validate the SPONSA.

Materials and methods: Validation of this score was carried out by measuring reproducibility, construct validity and sensitivity to change. Time to completion was also recorded. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and Constant Score (CS) were used for comparison. These assessments were performed with 61 individuals undergoing shoulder interventions.

Results: There was excellent preoperative reproducibility in both intra- and inter-observer groups. The SPONSA had a 0.79 correlation with the OSS and 0.78 with the CS. The overall effect size of the SPONSA was 0.72, which was comparable to OSS (0.65) and greater than CS (0.34), implying equal or better sensitivity to change.

Conclusions: The SPONSA is practical and quick to perform and also a reproducible and a sensitive instrument. This simple PROM is a commendable addition to the existing validated scoring methods for the shoulder.

Level of evidence: I; testing of previously developed diagnostic criteria on consecutive patients (with universally applied reference "gold" standard).

Keywords: Assessment; outcome; score; shoulder; validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Intra-observer reliability of the SPONSA. SPONSA performed by observer 1 at points A and B (n=31). Bland and Altman plot of scores for intra-observer reliability showing that only two subjects in each group were outside 2 standard deviations of the mean difference and 93% of the subjects were within 2 standard deviations
Figure 2
Figure 2
Inter-observer reliability of the SPONSA. SPONSA performed by observer 1 at point A and observer 2 at point B (n=30). Bland and Altman plot of scores for inter-observer reliability showing that only two subjects in each group were outside 2 standard deviations of the mean difference and 93% of the subjects were within 2 standard deviations
Figure 3
Figure 3
Correlation of SPONSA with Oxford Shoulder Score. Combined pre and post-op treatment. Pearson correlation coefficient=−0.79 (n=105). A graphical representation of the correlation between the SPONSA and the Oxford Shoulder Score
Figure 4
Figure 4
Correlation of SPONSA with Constant Score. Combined pre- and post-treatment. Pearson correlation coefficient=0.78 (n=95). A graphical representation of the correlation between the SPONSA and the Constant Score
Figure 5
Figure 5
Time to complete scores: The time to complete the SPONSA, OSS and CM scores with 2 SD
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:593–600. - PubMed
    1. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop. 1987;214:160–4. - PubMed
    1. Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3:347–52. - PubMed
    1. Lippitt SB, Harryman DT, Matsen FA. A practical tool for evaluation function: The simple shoulder test. In: Matsen FA, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ, editors. The shoulder: A balance of mobility and stability. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Rosemont; 1993. pp. 501–18.
    1. Barrett WP, Franklin JL, Jackins SE, Wyss CR, Matsen FA. Total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:865–72. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources