88
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Dutch version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score: A validation study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was constructed in Sweden. This questionnaire has proved to be valid for several orthopedic interventions of the knee. It has been formally translated and validated in several languages, but not yet in Dutch. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the Dutch version of the KOOS questionnaire in knee patients with various stages of osteoarthritis (OA).

          Methods

          The Swedish version of the KOOS questionnaire was first translated into Dutch according to a standardized procedure and second tested for clinimetric quality. The study population consisted of patients with different stages of OA (mild, moderate and severe) and of patients after primary TKA, and after a revision of the TKA. All patients filled in the Dutch KOOS questionnaire, as well as the SF-36 and a Visual Analogue Scale for pain. The following analyses were performed to evaluate the clinimetric quality of the KOOS: Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency), principal component analyses (factor analysis), intraclass correlation coefficients (reliability), spearman's correlation coefficient (construct validity), and floor and ceiling effects.

          Results

          For all patients groups Cronbach's alpha was for all subscales above 0.70. The ICCs, assessed for the patient groups with mild and moderate OA and after revision of the TKA patients, were above 0.70 for all subscales. Of the predefined hypotheses 60% or more could be confirmed for the patients with mild and moderate OA and for the TKA patients. For the other patient groups less than 45% could be confirmed. Ceiling effects were present in the mild OA group for the subscales Pain, Symptoms and ADL and for the subscale Sport/Recreation in the severe OA group. Floor effects were found for the subscales Sport/Recreation and Qol in the severe OA and revision TKA groups.

          Conclusion

          Based on these different clinimetric properties within the present study we conclude that the KOOS questionnaire seems to be suitable for patients with mild and moderate OA and for patients with a primary TKA. The Dutch version of the KOOS had a lower construct validity for patients with severe OA on a waiting list for TKA and patients after revision of a TKA. Further validation studies on the Dutch version of the KOOS should also include a knee specific questionnaire for assessing the construct validity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--validation of a Swedish version.

          The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is a self-administered instrument measuring outcome after knee injury at impairment, disability, and handicap level in five subscales. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a Swedish version was assessed in 142 patients who underwent arthroscopy because of injury to the menisci, anterior cruciate ligament, or cartilage of the knee. The clinimetric properties were found to be good and comparable to the American version of the KOOS. Comparison to the Short Form-36 and the Lysholm knee scoring scale revealed expected correlations and construct validity. Item by item, symptoms and functional limitations were compared between diagnostic groups. High responsiveness was found three months after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for all subscales but Activities of Daily Living.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A methodological framework for assessing health indices.

            Tests or measures in clinical medicine or the social sciences can be used for three purposes: discriminating between subjects, predicting either prognosis or the results of some other test, and evaluating change over time. The choices made at each stage of constructing a quality of life index will differ depending on the purpose of the instrument. We explore the implications of index purpose for each stage of instrument development: selection of the item pool, item scaling, item reduction, determination of reliability, of validity, and of responsiveness. At many of these stages, not only are the requirements for discriminative, predictive, and evaluative instruments not complementary, they are actually competing. Attention to instrument purpose will clarify the choices both for those developing quality of life measures and for those selecting an appropriate instrument for clinical studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Performance measures were necessary to obtain a complete picture of osteoarthritic patients.

              Self-report questionnaires and performance measures represent two methods for assessing physical function. A recurring theme is that self-report measures are superior to performance measures. This study investigated the association between three performance test outcomes of four activities (pain, exertion, and time or distance; for self-paced walk, stair test, timed up-and-go, 6-minute walk) with self-reports of physical function (WOMAC Physical Function subscale and LEFS) and the association between the change scores of the performance tests and those of the self-report measures. Performance and self-report measures were administered three times (presurgery and at approximately 1 week and approximately 8 weeks post arthroplasty) to 85 patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty. Components of the performance tests were pooled within each domain across the four measures. Multiple regression analyses were applied. Independent variables were performance tests components; dependent variables were self-report measures. Standardized regression coefficients described the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations. Pain was the principal determinant of WOMAC Physical Function subscale scores. Pain, exertion, and time or distance were strongly associated with the LEFS at the first, second, and third assessments, respectively. Change in pain was most strongly associated with change in self-reported physical function. Our findings caution against the isolated use of self-report assessments of physical function.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Qual Life Outcomes
                Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
                BioMed Central
                1477-7525
                2008
                26 February 2008
                : 6
                : 16
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Orthopaedics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Article
                1477-7525-6-16
                10.1186/1477-7525-6-16
                2289810
                18302729
                8079f1a7-fc8d-4f6c-8a96-a8c83ae3ebac
                Copyright © 2008 de Groot et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 2 August 2007
                : 26 February 2008
                Categories
                Research

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article