Psychometric properties of The Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire: systematic review and meta-analysis
Propriedades psicométricas do The Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire: revisão sistemática e meta-análise
Jânio Luiz Correia Júnior; Maria Fernanda da Silva Torres; Sthefanny Pontes Sampaio Costa; Hermê Fellipo Bordoni Caldeira; Marina Pereira Gonçalves; Ricardo Freitas-Dias
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With the necessity to assess musculoskeletal complaints caused by computer use, The Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ) was created, which aims to assess musculoskeletal complaints of the upper limbs, shoulder complex and cervical spine in computer users. However, there is currently no comprehensive summary in the scientific literature on the psychometric properties of the MUEQ. The objective of this study was to conduct a synthesis of all available scientific evidence that has analyzed the psychometric properties of the MUEQ.
CONTENTS: This study followed the PRISMA recommendations. The bibliographic search was carried out in the following databases: Medline (via VHL), Embase, LILACS (via BVS), Pubmed, PsycINFO, Scielo, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source, MEDLINE Complete, Web of Science CENTRAL, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Studies that addressed the psychometric properties of the MUEQ were included, as long as they were original articles of research carried out with human beings and indexed in the databases used. The studies were selected in two phases, with two independent reviewers. A total of 6 articles were included in the analysis. The evidence based on internal structure showed acceptable results. The reliability indexes ranged from α=0.52 to α=0.84, and ICC/composite reliability > 0.70 in the analyzed studies, classified as “good” and “excellent,” respectively.
CONCLUSION: In general, this research found a lack of detail on the process of content validity and evidence related to external variables and the description of the sample. These problems extended to the evidence based on the internal structure and reliability of the MUEQ, which did not reach levels considered acceptable to ensure its adequacy and accuracy.
Keywords
Resumo
JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: Com a necessidade de avaliar as queixas musculoesqueléticas ocasionadas pelo uso de computadores, foi criado o The Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ), cujo objetivo foi avaliar as queixas musculoesqueléticas relativas aos membros superiores, ao complexo do ombro e à cervical em usuários de computadores. No entanto, atualmente não existe uma sumarização abrangente, na literatura científica, sobre as propriedades psicométricas do MUEQ. O objetivo deste estudo foi realizar uma síntese de evidências científicas disponíveis que analisaram as propriedades psicométricas do MUEQ.
CONTEÚDO: Este estudo seguiu as recomendações do PRISMA. A busca bibliográfica foi realizada nas bases de dados Medline (via BVS), Embase, LILACS (via BVS), Pubmed, PsycINFO, Scielo, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source, MEDLINE Complete, Web of Science CENTRAL, Scopus e SPORTDiscus. Foram incluídos estudos que abordaram as propriedades psicométricas do MUEQ, desde que fossem artigos originais de pesquisas desenvolvidas com seres humanos e indexados nas bases utilizadas. A seleção dos estudos ocorreu em duas fases, com dois revisores independentes. Foram incluídos 6 artigos/publicações na análise. A evidência baseada na estrutura interna apresentou resultados aceitáveis. Os índices de fidedignidade variaram de α=0,52 a α=0,84 e ICC/confiabilidade composta foram maiores que 0,70 nos estudos selecionados, classificados como “bom” e “excelente”, respectivamente.
CONCLUSÃO: De um modo geral, esta pesquisa constatou a falta de detalhamento sobre o processo de validade de conteúdo e de evidências relacionados a variáveis externas e à descrição da amostra. Esses problemas se estenderam à evidência baseada na estrutura interna e à confiabilidade do MUEQ, que não alcançaram níveis considerados aceitáveis para garantir sua adequação e precisão.
Palavras-chave
References
1 Bongers PM, Ijmker S, van den Heuvel S, Blatter BM. Epidemiology of work related neck and upper limb problems: Psychosocial and personal risk factors (Part I) and effective interventions from a bio behavioural perspective (Part II). J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(3):272-95.
2 Hutting N, Staal J, Heerkens YF, Engels JA, Sanden MWN der. A self-management program for employees with complaints of the arm, neck, or shoulder (CANS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14(1):258.
3 Huisstede BMA, Miedema HS, Verhagen AP, Koes BW, Verhaar JAN. Multidisciplinary consensus on the terminology and classification of complaints of the arm, neck and/or shoulder. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64(5):313-9.
4 Kashif M, Anwar M, Noor H, Iram H, Hassan HMJ. Prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints of arm, neck and shoulder and associated risk factors in computer office workers. Phys Medizin, Rehabil Kurortmedizin. 2020;30(05):299-305.
5 AlOmar RS, AlShamlan NA, Alawashiz S, Badawood Y, Ghwoidi BA, Abugad H. Musculoskeletal symptoms and their associated risk factors among Saudi office workers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):763.
6 European Commission. Health and safety at work in Europe (1999-2007) - A statistical portrait. In: 2010th ed. Luxembourg: Eurostat; 2010. 41-70p.
7 Punnett L, Wegman DH. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the epidemiologic evidence and the debate. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004;14(1):13-23.
8 Sonne M, Villalta DL, Andrews DM. Development and evaluation of an office ergonomic risk checklist: ROSA - Rapid office strain assessment. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(1):98-108.
9 Gerding T, Syck M, Daniel D, Naylor J, Kotowski SE, Gillespie GL, Freeman AM, Huston TR, Davis KG. An assessment of ergonomic issues in the home offices of university employees sent home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Work. 2021;68(4):981-92.
10 Global Workplace Analytics. Global Work-from-Home Experience Survey [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Aug 7]. Available from:
11 Fernandes T, Salgueiro ACF. Dores musculoesqueléticas e ergonomia em tempos de home office. Res Soc Dev. 2022;11(13):e414111335743-e414111335743.
12 Asundi K, Odell D, Luce A, Dennerlein JT. Notebook computer use on a desk, lap and lap support: Effects on posture, performance and comfort. Ergonomics. 2010;53(1):74-82.
13 Davis KG, Kotowski SE, Daniel D, Gerding T, Naylor J, Syck M. The home office: ergonomic lessons from the “new normal”. Ergon Des Q Hum Factors Appl. 2020;28(4):4-10.
14 Werth AJ, Babski-Reeves K. Assessing posture while typing on portable computing devices in traditional work environments and at home. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2012;56(1):1258-62.
15 Rodrigues MS, Leite RDV, Lelis CM, Chaves TC. Differences in ergonomic and workstation factors between computer office workers with and without reported musculoskeletal pain. Work. 2017;57(4):563-72.
16 Szeto GPY, Straker LM, O’Sullivan PB. A comparison of symptomatic and asymptomatic office workers performing monotonous keyboard work-2: Neck and shoulder kinematics. Man Ther. 2005;10(4):281-91.
17 Nakatsuka K, Tsuboi Y, Okumura M, Murata S, Isa T, Kawaharada R, Matsuda N, Uchida K, Horibe K, Kogaki M, Ono R. Association between comprehensive workstation and neck and upper-limb pain among office worker. J Occup Health. 2021;63(1):e12194.
18 Marques NR, Hallal CZ, Gonçalves M. Características biomecânicas, ergonômicas e clínicas da postura sentada: uma revisão. Fisioter Pesqui. 2010;17(3):270-6.
19 Ghasemi M, Kamalikhah T, Salesi M, Rahmati F. Evaluation of psychometric properties of the maastricht upper extremity questionnaire (MUEQ) in iranian computer users. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:245.
20 Turci AM, Bevilaqua-Grossi D, Pinheiro CF, Bragatto MM, Chaves TC. The Brazilian Portuguese version of the revised Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ-Br revised): translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and structural validation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):41.
21 Eltayeb S, Staal JB, Kennes J, Lamberts PH, de Bie RA. Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers and psychometric evaluation of a risk factor questionnaire. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8(1):68.
22 Bekiari EI, Lyrakos GN, Damigos D, Mavreas V, Chanopoulos K, Dimoliatis IDK. A validation study and psychometrical evaluation of the Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ) for the Greek-speaking population. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2011;11(1):52-76.
23 Eltayeb SM, Staal JB, Hassan AA, Awad SS, de Bie RA. Complaints of the arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers in Sudan: a prevalence study with validation of an Arabic risk factors questionnaire. Environ Heal. 2008;7(1):33.
24 Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, Mokkink LB. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159-70.
25 American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Lanham, MD: American Educational Research Association; 2014. 1-230p.
26 Chien PF, Khan KS, Siassakos D. Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;119(8):903-5.
27 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Moher D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:103-12.
28 Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022) [Internet]. 2nd ed. Chichester (UK): Cochrane; 2022 [cited 2023 Aug 7]. p. 1-728. Available from:
29 Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147-57.
30 McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-6.
31 Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.
32 Hupe M. EndNote X9. J Electron Resour Med Libr. 2019;16(3-4):117-9.
33 Brink Y, Louw QA. Clinical instruments: reliability and validity critical appraisal. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(6):1126-32.
34 GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University and Evidence Prime, 2022. Available from gradepro.org
35 Sitoe SA, Codonhato R, Both J, Fiorese L. Educação física e satisfação das necessidades psicológicas básicas em escolares de Maputo-Moçambique. Pensar a Prática. 2019;22:1-11.
36 Souza GS, Duarte MFS. Estágios de mudança de comportamento relacionados à atividade física em adolescentes. Rev Bras Med Esp. 2005;11(2):104-8.
37 Loprinzi PD, Cardinal BJ, Loprinzi KL, Lee H. Benefits and environmental determinants of physical activity in children and adolescents. Obes Facts. 2012;5(4):597-610.
38 De Lara PZM. Fairness, teachers’ non-task behavior and alumni satisfaction: the influence of group commitment. J Educ Adm. 2008;46(4):514-38.
39 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman GD. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses Julian. BMJ. 2003;327:132-35.
40 Santos GM, Strathdee SA, El-Bassel N, Patel P, Subramanian D, Horyniak D, Cook RR, McCullagh C, Marotta P, Choksi F, Kang B, Allen I, Shoptaw S. Psychometric properties of measures of substance use: a systematic review and meta-analysis of reliability, validity and diagnostic test accuracy. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):1-22.
41 Ponterotto JG. An overview of coefficient alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficients with psychological research measures. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;5(7):997.
42 Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42.
43 Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, Williamson PR, Terwee CB. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘Core Outcome Set’ - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):1-10.
44 Hair Jr JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 1st ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage publications; 2021. 1-328 p.
45 Ranasinghe P, Perera YS, Lamabadusuriya DA, Kulatunga S, Jayawardana N, Rajapakse S, Katulanda P. Work-related complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers in an Asian country: prevalence and validation of a risk-factor questionnaire. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12(1):68.
46 Comper MLC, Costa LOP, Padula RS. Quick Exposure Check (QEC): a crosscultural adaptation into Brazilian-Portuguese. Work. 2012;41(Supp1):2056-9.
47 Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998;3(4):322-55.
48 de Barros ENC, Alexandre NMC. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire. Int Nurs Rev. 2003;50(2):101-8.
Submitted date:
03/22/2023
Accepted date:
09/11/2023
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email