Bibliografia

1. Milles A. Science, humanism, judgement, ethics: person – centered medicine as an emergent model of modern clinical practice. Folia Med 2013; 55(1): 5-24.
2. Grenville J, Lyne P. Patient-centred evaluation and rehabilitative care. J Adv Nurs 1995; 22(5): 965-72.
3. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F. Guidelines for the process of cross – cultural adaptation of self – report measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186-91.
4. Smith AM, Barnes SA, Sperling JW, et al. Patient and physician- assessed shoulder function after arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 2006; 88: 508-13.
5. Frost MH, Reeve BB, Liepa AM, Stauffer JW, Hays RD, the Mayo/FDA Patient – Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient – reported outcomes measures?. Value in health 2007; 10(2): 94-105.
6. Franchignoni F, Bazzini G. La valutazione dell’outcome in medicina fisica e riabilitativa. In: Valobra GN, Gatto R, Monticone M, eds. Medicina fisica e riabilitazione. Torino: Utet, 2008; p. 27.
7. Andersen EM, Lollar DJ, Meyers AR. Disability outcomes research: why this supplement, on this topic, at this time? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81(12): 1-4.
8. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO, 2001 (Edizione italiana, Trento: Erickson, 2002).
9. Fernandez-Lopez JA, Fernandez-Fidalgo M, Geoffrey R, Stucki G, Cieza A. Functioning and disability: the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Rev Esp Salud Publica 2009; 83(6): 775-83.
10. Jette DU, Halbert J, Iverson C, Miceli E, Shah P. Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther 2009; 89(2): 125-35.
11. Bowling A. Measuring disease. 2nd edition. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2001.
12. Wytze P, Oosterhuis W, Bruns DE, et al. Evidence-based guidelines in laboratory medicine: principles and methods. Clin Chem 2004; 50(5): 806-18.
13. MacDermid JC. Patient-reported outcomes, state-of-the-art hand surgery and future applications. Hand Clin 2014; 30: 293-304.
14. Hefford C, Abbott JH, Arnold R, Baxter GD. The patient-specific functional scale: validity, reliability and responsiveness in patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal problems. J Othop Sports Phys Ther 2012; 42(2): 57-65.
15. Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986; 34: 119–26.
16. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH. Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602-8.
17. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther 1999; 79(4): 371-83.
18. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, et al. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int 2005; 26: 968-83.
19. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Othop Sports Phys Ther 2007; 37: 72-84.
20. Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, et al. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75: 1585-92.
21. Price LR, Oshina TC. Differential item functioning and language translation: a cross-national study with a test developed for certification. Atti dell’Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1998; San Diego (USA).
22. Kim A, Lim EY. How critical is back translation in cross-cultural adaptation of attitude measurement? Atti dell’Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1999; Montreal (Can).
23. Auchter JE, Stansfield C. Linking tests across languages: focus on the translation and adaptation process. Atti dell’Annual Meeting of the National Council on measurement in education. 1997; Chicago (USA).
24. Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross-Cultural Psychology 1970; 1(3): 185-216.
25. Brislin R, Lonner W, Thorndike R. Cross-Cultural research methods. New York: Wiley, 1973.
26. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1417-32.
27. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, De Vet HC, et al. Dutch-Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the Patient – Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Qual Life Res 2013; 6: 611-6.
28. Uysal-Bozkir O, Parlevliet JL, De Rooij SE. Insufficient cross-cultural adaptations and psychometric properties from many translated health assessment scales: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 608-18.
29. Sechrest L, Fay TL, Zaidi S. Problems of translation in cross-cultural research. J Cross-Cultural Psychology 1972; 3(1): 41-56.
30. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1033-9.
31. Terwee CB, Bot SD, De Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42.
32. Maki D, Rajab E, Watson PJ, Critchley DJ. Cross-cultural translation, adaptation and psychometric testing of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire into modern standard arabic. Spine 2014; 39(25): E1537-44.
33. Werner O, Campbell DT. Translation, wording through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In: Narrol R, Cohen R (Eds). A Handbook of method in cultural anthropology. New York: Natural History Press, 1970; pp. 398-420.
34. Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson N. Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instrument from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 451-59.
35. Revicki DA, Erickson PA, Sloan JA, et al. Interpreting and reporting results based on patient – reported outcomes. Value in health, 2007; 10(2): 116-24.
36. Franchignoni F, Salaffi F. Generic and specific measures for outcome assessment in orthopaedic and rheumatologic rehabilitation. In: Franchignoni F, Salaffi F (Eds). Advance in rehabilitation 3. Pavia: Pi-Me Editore. 2004; p. 45-78.
37. Franchignoni F, Ring H. Measuring change in rehabilitation medicine. Eura Medicophys 2006; 42: 1-3.
38. Andersen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81(2): 15-20.
39. Dowrick AS, Gabbe BJ, Williamson OD, Cameron PA. Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremity following trauma: a review. Injury, 2005; 36: 468-76.
40. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Infromation System PROMIS – Physical Function. Translation from PROMIS website. Disponibile a: www.nihpromis.org/measures/domainframework. Ultimo accesso 14/11/14.
41. Tucker CA, Cieza A, Riley AW, et al. Concept analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Qual Life Res 2014; 23: 1677-86.
42. Tucker CA, Escorpizo R, Cieza A, et al. Mapping the content of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) using the International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability. Qual Life Res 2014; 23(9): 2431-8.
43. Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Fries JF, Krishnan E. Responsiveness and Minimally Important Difference for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 0: 1-4.
44. Instruments Available for Use in Assessment Center. PROMIS Instruments Available in Assessment Center. Disponibile a: www.assessmentcenter.net. Ultimo accesso 15/11/2014.
45. Broderick JE, Schneider S, Junghaenel DU, Schwartz JE, Stone AA. Validity and reliability of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2013; 65(10): 1625-33.
46. Fries J, Rose M, Krishnan E. The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and Internet administration. J Rheum 2011; 38(8): 1759-64.
47. Hung M, Stuart AR, Higgins TF, Saltzman CL, Kubiak EN. Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS Physical Function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared to the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma 2013; 24(3): 783-99.