Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Sports Med Int Open 2018; 02(06): E191-E199
DOI: 10.1055/a-0729-3000
Training & Testing
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

Dance Functional Outcome Survey: Development and Preliminary Analyses

Shaw Bronner
1   ADAM Center, New York, NY United States
,
Igor Reis Urbano
1   ADAM Center, New York, NY United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 20 December 2017
revised 22 July 2018

accepted 26 August 2018

Publication Date:
28 November 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The Dance Functional Outcome Survey (DFOS) was developed as a self-report questionnaire for healthy and injured ballet and modern dancers, focusing on the low back and lower extremities. Our aim was to determine factor analysis and internal consistency of the 16 items and to investigate test-retest and equivalence reliability and validity of the DFOS compared to three orthopedic outcomes instruments. Data were collected from 80 healthy and injured adult ballet and modern pre-professional and professional dancers. DFOS Likert-type and visual analog scales were completed twice within 4–9 days to study test-retest reliability. The Cincinnati Knee Rating System, Olerud and Molander Foot-Ankle Questionnaire, and Oswestry Disability Index were used to assess concurrent validity using intraclass correlation coefficients in SPSS, p<0.05. To determine instrument dimensions and internal consistency of the items, we conducted exploratory factor analysis and calculated Cronbach’s α in JASP. DFOS demonstrated single factor loading and high Cronbach’s α; high test-retest repeatability and equivalence reliability (r=0.74–0.99) and acceptable criterion validity compared to the orthopedic outcomes instruments (r≥0.67). These results support further study of a revised 14 item Likert-version DFOS for repeatability, validity and responsiveness.

Key words

ballet - likert scale - modern dance - orthopedic injury - questionnaire - self-report - visual analog scale
 

  • References

  • 1 Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sebille V, Hardouin JB. Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014; 12: 176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR, McCloskey JW. Rigorous statistical reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing of the Cincinnati knee rating system in 350 subjects with uninjured, injured, or anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27: 402-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Basmajian JV, Harden TP, Regenos EM. Integrated actions of the four heads of quadriceps femoris: An electromyographic study. Anat Rec 1972; 172: 15-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): Scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther 1999; 79: 371-383
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bolton JE, Wilkinson RC. Responsiveness of pain scales: A comparison of three pain intensity measures in chiropractic patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1998; 21: 1-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bowerman E, Whatman C, Harris N, Bradshaw E, Karin J. Are maturation, growth and lower extremity alignment associated with overuse injury in elite adolescent ballet dancers?. Phys Ther Sport 2014; 15: 234-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Briggs KK, Kocher MS, Rodkey WG, Steadman JR. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee score and Tegner activity scale for patients with meniscal injury of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 698-705
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bronner S, Bauer NG. Risk factors for musculoskeletal injury in elite pre-professional modern dancers: A prospective cohort prognostic study. Phys Ther Sport 2018; 31: 42-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bronner S, Ojofeitimi S, Mayers L. Comprehensive surveillance of dance injuries: A proposal for uniform reporting guidelines for professional companies. J Dance Med Sci 2006; 10: 69-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bronner S, Ojofeitimi S, Rose D. Injuries in a modern dance company: Effect of comprehensive management on injury incidence and time loss. Am J Sports Med 2003; 31: 365-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bronner S, Ojofeitimi S, Rose D. Repair and rehabilitation of extensor hallucis longus and brevis tendon lacerations in a professional dancer. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008; 38: 362-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bronner S, Turner R. The Dance Functional Outcome System (DFOS): A new measurement tool. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1999; 29: A-20 (Abstract)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bronner S, Wood L. Impact of touring, performance schedule, and definitions on 1-year injury rates in a modern dance company. J Sports Sci 2017; 35: 2093-2104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Brunier G, Graydon J. A comparison of two methods of measuring fatigue in patients on chronic haemodialysis: visual analogue vs. Likert scale. Int J Nurs Stud 1996; 33: 338-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 1978; 37: 378-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ekegren CL, Quested R, Brodrick A. Injuries in pre-professional ballet dancers: Incidence, characteristics and consequences. J Sci Med Sport 2014; 17: 271-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25: 2940-2952; discussion 2952
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009; 41: 1149-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Flynn D, van Schaik P, van Wersch A. A comparison of multi-item likert and visual analogue scales for the assessment of transactionally defined coping function. Eur J Psychol Assessment 2004; 20: 49-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gadotti I, Vieira E, Magee D. Importance and clarification of measurement properties in rehabilitation. Braz J Phys Ther 2006; 10: 137-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gamboa JM, Roberts LA, Maring J, Fergus A. Injury patterns in elite preprofessional ballet dancers and the utility of screening programs to identify risk characteristics. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008; 38: 126-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 1129-1133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Harriss DJ, Macsween A, Atkinson G. Standards for ethics in sport and exercise science research: 2018 update. Int J Sports Med 2017; 38: 1126-1131
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hasson D, Arnetz B. Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. Likert scales for psychosocial measurements. Int Electronic. J Health Educ 2005; 8: 178-192
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hincapié CA, Morton EJ, Cassidy JD. Musculoskeletal injuries and pain in dancers: A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 1819-1829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kline P. The Handbook of Psychological Testing. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Kuhlmann T, Dantlgraber M, Reips UD. Investigating measurement equivalence of visual analogue scales and Likert-type scales in Internet-based personality questionnaires. Behav Res Methods 2017; DOI: 10.3758/s13428-016-0850-x.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Losby J, Wetmore A.Using Likert scales in evaluation survey work. (February 14, 2012) Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/pubs/docs/cb_february_14_2012.pdf
    PubMed
  • 29 Marfeo EE, Haley SM, Jette AM, Eisen SV, Ni P, Bogusz K, Meterko M, McDonough CM, Chan L, Brandt DE, Rasch EK. Conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for Social Security work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 1645-1652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Lalonde KA, Conti S. Current concepts review: Foot and ankle outcome instruments. Foot Ankle Int 2006; 27: 383-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Marx RG, Jones EC, Allen AA, Altchek DW, O'Brien SJ, Rodeo SA, Williams RJ, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A: 1459-1469
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychol Med 1988; 18: 1007-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Motta-Valencia K. Dance-related injury. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2006; 17: 697-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Munro BH. Statistical Methods for Health Care Research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Nilsson GM, Eneroth M, Ekdahl CS. The Swedish version of OMAS is a reliable and valid outcome measure for patients with ankle fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Olerud C, Molander H. A scoring scale for symptom evaluation after ankle fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1984; 103: 190-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2000; 104: 1-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Ramkumar PN, Farber J, Arnouk J, Varner KE, McCulloch PC. Injuries in a professional ballet dance company: A 10-year retrospective study. J Dance Med Sci 2016; 20: 30-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Smith PJ, Gerrie BJ, Varner KE, McCulloch PC, Lintner DM, Harris JD. Incidence and prevalence of musculoskeletal injury in ballet: A systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med 2015; 3: 2325967115592621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Trepman E, Gellman RE, Solomon R, Murthy KR, Micheli LJ, De Luca CJ. Electromyographic analysis of standing posture and demi-plie in ballet and modern dancers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26: 771-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 van Laerhoven H, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, Derkx BH. A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children's questionnaires. Acta Paediatr 2004; 93: 830-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Vianin M. Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disability Index. J Chiropr Med 2008; 7: 161-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Vickers AJ. Comparison of an ordinal and a continuous outcome measure of muscle soreness. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15: 709-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2013; 9: 79-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Zamani E, Kordi R, Nourian R, Noorian N, Memari AH, Shariati M. Low back pain functional disability in athletes; conceptualization and initial development of a questionnaire. Asian J Sports Med 2014; 5: e24281
    PubMedGoogle Scholar