ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Modern/Ballet (Bronner, S., E. Chodock, I. E. R. Urbano and T. Smith (2019); n = 198; mean age = 24.56 +/- 6.22; age range = 18-51;  dance training years = 14.92 +/- 6.55)

• Combined Healthy and Injured Groups

DFOS total: SEM = 2.31

ADL portion: SEM = 1.29

Technique portion: SEM = 1.86
 

• Healthy group
  • SEM = 0.58 - 0.86
• Injured group
  • SEM = 1.72 - 3.22

(Bronner, S., Smith, T., Brown, K., Urbano, I. R. (2016); n = 89)

• DFOS total score: SEM = 2.44
• Technique: SEM = 3.30
• ADL: SEM = 2.63

Spanish - Contemporary/Ballet (de-la-Cruz-Torres, B., I. Barrera-Garc¨ªa-Mart¨ªn, C. Romero-Morales and S. Bronner (2020); n = 89; mean age = 20.12 +/- 4.30 yrs; dance training = 11.39 +/- 5.64 yrs)

• Combined Healthy and Injured Groups

• DFOS-Sp total: SEM = 1.60
  • ADL portion: SEM = 0.92
  • Technique portion: SEM = 1.02
• Healthy Group
• SEM = 1.29-1.93
• Injured group
• SEM = 0.66-1.49

Modern/Ballet (Bronner, S., E. Chodock, I. E. R. Urbano and T. Smith (2019))

• Calculated using MDC = 1.96 x SEM x square root of 2
• MDC for Combined Healthy and Injured Groups
  • MDC = 6.40 points

Spanish - Contemporary/Ballet (de-la-Cruz-Torres, B., I. Barrera-Garc¨ªa-Mart¨ªn, C. Romero-Morales and S. Bronner (2020)

• Calculated using MDC = 1.96 x SEM x square root of 2
• MDC for Combined Healthy and Injured Groups
  • MDC = 4.43 points

Modern/Ballet (Bronner, S., E. Chodock, I. E. R. Urbano and T. Smith (2019))

• Cutoffs were 77.5 for the DFOS total score (based on sensitivity and specificity values of 0.92 and 0.82, respectively)
  • 35.5 for ADL subscore (sensitivity 0.85; specificity 0.82)
  • 43.5 for technique subscore (sensitivity 0.91;  specificity 0.81)

Spanish - Contemporary/Ballet (de-la-Cruz-Torres, B., I. Barrera-Garc¨ªa-Mart¨ªn, C. Romero-Morales and S. Bronner (2020)

• Cutoffs were 80.5 for DFOS-Sp total (sensitivity and specificity values 0.76 and 0.78, respectively)
  • 34.5 for ADL scores (sensitivity 0.76; specificity 0.74)
  • 45.5 for Technique scores (sensitivity 0.77; specificity 0.68)

Modern/Ballet (Bronner, S., E. Chodock, I. E. R. Urbano and T. Smith (2019))

• Data from 725 participants
  • Healthy dancers scored avg 85.75 +/- 5.64
  • Injured dancers scored avg 32.11 +/- 24.4

Spanish - Contemporary/Ballet (de-la-Cruz-Torres, B., I. Barrera-Garc¨ªa-Mart¨ªn, C. Romero-Morales and S. Bronner (2020))

• Data from 127 participants
  • Healthy dancers scored avg 83.34 +/- 7.66
  • Injured dancers scored avg 71.35 +/- 13.84

Modern and Ballet (Bronner, S. and I. R. Urbano (2018); n = 80; mean age = 25.69 +/- 5.49; dance training years = 14.71 +/- 6.22; Time between assessments: 4-9 days)

• High: DFOS LS v. LS (r = .99), VAS v. VAS (r = 0.94) - 16-item
  • Removal of the two back-related items (making it a 14 item questionnaire) improved technique and total score correlations and internal consistency.
  • LS v. VAS (r=0.74)

(Bronner, S., E. Chodock, I. E. R. Urbano and T. Smith (2019; n =198; 130 female, 68 male; mean ¡À SD age, 24.56 ¡À 6.22 years; range, 18¨C51 years; time between assessments: 4-9 days)

• Combined healthy and injured group
  • Very high test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99)

• High healthy-group test-retest reliability of DFOS total score (ICC = 0.95), ADL (ICC = 0.89), and technique subscores (ICC = 0.92)
  • Moderate test-retest reliability specifically for rond de jambe item (ICC = 0.67)
  • SEM ranged from 0.58 to 0.86 (healthy group)
• High injured-group reliability for all DFOS scores and items
  • SEM ranged from 1.72 to 3.22 (injured group)

(Bronner, S., Smith, T., Brown, K., Urbano, I. R. (2016) Abstract only; n = 89)

• High: Total scores (r = 0.836); Technique sub-score (r = 0.803); ADL sub-score (r=0.797)

Spanish - Contemporary/Ballet (de-la-Cruz-Torres, B., I. Barrera-Garc¨ªa-Mart¨ªn, C. Romero-Morales and S. Bronner (2020); n = 89; mean age = 20.12 +/- 4.30 yrs; dance training = 11.39 +/- 5.64 yrs; time between assessments: 7-10 days)

• Combined Healthy and Injured Group
  • Very High test-retest: ICC ¡Ý 0.98 for DFOS-Sp total, ADL and technique scores
  • Very High item-level reliability: ICC ¡Ý 0.92
• Healthy group
  • High test-retest:
    • DFOS-Sp total: ICC = 0.92
    • ADL: ICC = 0.89
    • Technique: ICC = 0.91
  • High item-level reliability:
    • ICC range = 0.70-0.92
    • Moderate item-level for stairs, developpe, rond de jambe
      • ICC range = 0.66-0.69
• Injured group
  • Very high: ICC = 0.99 for all DFOS-Sp scores and item level

Modern and Ballet (Bronner, S., E. Chodock, I. E. R. Urbano and T. Smith (2019) n = 725; had professional, pre-professional, teachers/ choreographers/ directors; age = 22.51 +/- 7.02; dance training years = 13.48 +/- 7.01)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha for all 14 items (0.96), 6 items within ADL portion (0.90), and 8 technique portion items (0.92)

(Bronner, S. and I. R. Urbano (2018); n = 80; Mean age was 26¡À5?yrs with 15¡À6?yrs dance training)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha 0.97 for 14-item questionnaire
  • Cronbach¡¯s alpha 0.90 for 16-item questionnaire

(Bronner, S., Smith, T., Brown, K., Urbano, I. R. (2016) Abstract only; n = 89)

• High: Cronback¡¯s alpha (0.83) for all 14 items  

Spanish - Contemporary/Ballet (de-la-Cruz-Torres, B., I. Barrera-Garc¨ªa-Mart¨ªn, C. Romero-Morales and S. Bronner (2020); n = 89; mean age = 20.12 +/- 4.30 yrs; dance training = 11.39 +/- 5.64 yrs)

• Excellent: Cronbach¡¯s alpha values for all 14-items (0.91, CI=0.88-0.94), 6 items within ADL (0.91), and 8 items within technique (0.91).

Concurrent Validity

Modern/Ballet (Bronner, S. and I. R. Urbano (2018))

*FAQ total score minus stiffness question; ? Technique score minus 2 back items; Abbreviations: Cincinnati Knee Rating System=CinnKnee; Foot-Ankle Questionnaire=FAQ; versus=v; activities of daily living=ADL; movement=mvt

(Bronner, S., Smith, T., Brown, K., Urbano, I. R. (2016) n = 51)

• Moderate: DFOS v. SF-36 PCS (physical component); r = 0.605
• Weak: DFOS v. SF-36 MCS (mental component); r = 0.400

Modern and Ballet (Bronner, S., E. Chodock, I. E. R. Urbano and T. Smith (2019) n = 725; had professional, pre-professional, teachers/choreographers/directors; age = 22.51 +/- 7.02; dance training years = 13.48 +/- 7.01)

• Strong correlations between SF-36 PCS (physical component summary) and DFOS total score (r = 0.79) and subscores (ADL, r = 0.79; technique, r = 0.77)
   
• Weak correlations between SF-36 MCS (mental component summary) and DFOS total score (r = 0.26) and subscores (ADL, r = 0.31; technique, r = 0.26)

Spanish - Contemporary/Ballet (de-la-Cruz-Torres, B., I. Barrera-Garc¨ªa-Mart¨ªn, C. Romero-Morales and S. Bronner (2020); n= 127; mean age = 20.12 +/- 4.30 yrs; dance training = 11.39 +/- 5.64 yrs)

• Moderate Pearson correlation between SF-36 PCS (physical component summary) vs. DFOS-Sp total (r= 0.61) and subscores (ADL, r = 0.56; technique, r = 0.58)
  • Individual ADL-items vs. PCS-domains (r = 0.26-0.54)
  • Individual Technique-items vs. PCS-domains (r = 0.20-0.50)
     
• Weak to no correlations between SF-36 MSC (mental component summary) vs. DFOS-Sp total and subscores
  • Weak correlation: Individual ADL-items vs MSC-domains & Technique-items vs. MCS-domain

Modern and Ballet (Bronner, S. and I. R. Urbano (2018))

¡°DFOS was submitted to an expert panel of 17 dance professionals (clinicians and dancers) and a specialist in outcomes development. They assessed what body regions were best reflected, if it was user-friendly, applicable to a wide range of training levels and populations, and how dancers would respond to the test length. We revised or dropped questions if 20% or more of the experts questioned them. The remaining 16 questions were re-weighted and assigned either 0¨C5 or 0¨C10 points based on expert item ranking. A score of 100 represented maximal function, with ADL and Technique representing 40 and 60 points, respectively.¡±

(Bronner S, Turner R. (1999) Abstract)

¡°Experts in the area of dance medicine (orthopaedists and physical therapists),

dance education and research, and elite dancers reviewed the DFOS for content validity.¡±

Modern and Ballet (Bronner, S., E. Chodock, I. E. R. Urbano and T. Smith (2019)

• The tool does not demonstrate floor or ceiling effects.

Spanish - Contemporary/Ballet (de-la-Cruz-Torres, B., I. Barrera-Garc¨ªa-Mart¨ªn, C. Romero-Morales and S. Bronner (2020)

• The tool does not demonstrate floor or ceiling effects.

Modern and Ballet (Bronner, S., E. Chodock, I. E. R. Urbano and T. Smith (2019) n = 47; mean age = 27.60 +/- 6.26 years)

• Highly responsive in reflecting the functional status of dancers
  • scores taken when dancer was healthy, injured, discharged, and 3 months after discharge
• Excellent sensitivity for distinguishing between healthy and injured
  • AUC value of 0.94
     

Spanish - Contemporary/Ballet (de-la-Cruz-Torres, B., I. Barrera-Garc¨ªa-Mart¨ªn, C. Romero-Morales and S. Bronner (2020)

• Internal Responsiveness (n=51; 46 female, 5 male; mean age 19.12 +/- 3.02 years)
  • Highly responsive and sensitive; scores showed significant differences across time for DFOS-Sp total
    • scores were taken at injured, discharge and 3-months
    • AUC = 0.82