Why the study?
The ACL-RSI and I-PRRS scales assess psychological factors related to return to sports with established validity and reliability, but their responsiveness required investigation.
Are the Dutch ACL-RSI and I-PRRS scales responsive to changes in psychological readiness to return to sport in patients with ACL reconstruction?
Are the Dutch ACL-RSI and I-PRRS scales responsive to changes in psychological readiness to return to sport in patients with ACL reconstruction?
The Dutch ACL-RSI and I-PRRS scales have low responsiveness and cannot distinguish minimally important changes from measurement error in individual patients, though they may be useful at the group level or as screening tools.
Insufficient for detecting individual change post-ACLR; leaves open group-level research and screening applications.
The ACL-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) and Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport (I-PRRS) scales were developed to assess psychological factors associated with return to sports. Validity and reliability have been determined. The aim of this study was to investigate the responsiveness of the Dutch ACL-RSI and I-PRRS. Seventy patients with ACL reconstruction completed both scales twice 2 months apart, plus a Global Rating of Change (GRC) questionnaire. Distribution and logistic regression-based methods were used to study responsiveness. The Standardized Response Mean (SRM) for the ACL-RSI was 0.3 and for the I-PRRS 0.1, indicating low responsiveness. The minimally important change (MIC) for ACL-RSI was 2.6 and for the I-PRRS 0.9. Since the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC) were larger than MIC in individual patients, it does not seem possible to distinguish minimally important changes from measurement error in individual patients with either scale. At the group level responsiveness seemed sufficient; hence, both scales can be used to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention at the group level. Both scales can also be used in cross-sectional research and in clinical practice as screening instruments to identify patients at risk of not returning to sports.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Slagers et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: