Cross-cultural translation and measurement properties of the Polish version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Ewa M Roos¹  Rafał Kęska²  Dariusz Witoński²  Przemysław T Paradowski³ 

[1] Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark;Department of Reconstructive Surgery and Arthroscopy of the Knee Joint, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University, Radliński Hospital, Drewnowska 75, 91-002 Łódź, Poland;Department of Orthopedics, Haugesund Hospital, Helse Fonna, Karmsundgata 120, N-5528 Haugesund, Norway

关键词: Orthopedic surgery;    Anterior cruciate ligament;    Psychometrics;    Validation study;    Patient-reported outcome;    Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score;   

Others  :  823517
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-107

 received in 2013-01-17, accepted in 2013-06-21,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is available in over 30 languages and a commonly used Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) for assessment of treatment effects following knee surgery. The aim of the study was to report the linguistic translational process and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the KOOS questionnaire.

Methods

We translated and culturally adapted the KOOS according to current guidelines for use in Poland. Patients who had undergone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) completed the KOOS and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). We evaluated floor/ceiling effects, reliability (using Cronbach’s alpha, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and measurement error), convergent and divergent construct validity (using four a priori stated hypotheses) and responsiveness (using data obtained prior to and one year after ACLR and described by both effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM)).

Results

The clinical study population consisted of 72 subjects (mean age 29.8, 28% women). We did not observe floor effects in any KOOS subscales neither pre- nor postoperatively. As expected, ceiling effects were found postoperatively for the subscales Pain and ADL in this cohort assessed on average 1.3 year after surgery as more than 15% reported no pain or limitations in daily activities. The Cronbach’s alpha was above 0.9 for all subscales indicating excellent internal consistency. The test-retest reliability of all KOOS subscales at one-year postoperatively was excellent with ICCs exceeding 0.86 for all subscales. The minimal detectable change on group level ranged from 1.3 to 2.4, and on an individual level from 10.9 to 20.2. Responsiveness was demonstrated since the expected pattern of effect sizes between subscales following ACLR was found.

Conclusions

We found the Polish version of the KOOS to be a valid and reliable instrument for use in patient groups having ACLR. We caution against monitoring individual patients since the smallest change considered clinically relevant cannot reliably be detected.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Paradowski et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Guillemin F: Functional disability and quality-of-life assessment in clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000, 39(Suppl 1):17-23.
• [2]Vander Zee KI, Sanderman R, Heyink J: A comparison of two multidimensional measures of health status: the Nottingham Health Profile and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Qual Life Res 1996, 5:165-174.
• [3]Spertus JA: Key issues in outcomes research. evolving applications for patient-centered health status measures. Circulation 2008, 118:2103-2110.
• [4]Pynsent PB: Choosing an outcome measure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001, 83:792-794.
• [5]Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB: Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25:3186-3191.
• [6]Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD: Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) – development of a self–administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998, 28:88-96.
• [7]Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1998, 8:439-448.
• [8]Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score http://www.koos.nu/index.html webcite
• [9]Xie F, Li SC, Roos EM, Fong KY, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Yang KY, Yeo W, Chong HC, Thumboo J: Crosscultural adaptation and validation of Singapore English and Chinese versions of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Asians with knee osteoarthritis in Singapore. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006, 14:1098-1103.
• [10]Salavati M, Mazaheri M, Negahban H, Sohani SM, Ebrahimian MR, Ebrahimi I, Kazemnejad A, Salavati M: Validation of a Persian-version of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Iranians with knee injuries. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008, 16:1178-1182.
• [11]Ornetti P, Parratte S, Gossec L, Tavernier C, Argenson JN, Roos EM, Guillemin F, Maillefert JF: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in knee osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008, 16:423-428.
• [12]de Groot IB, Favejee MM, Reijman M, Verhaar JAN, Terwee CB: The Dutch version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: a validation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008, 6:16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Goncalves RS, Cabriy J, Pinheirox JP, Ferreirak PL: Crosscultural adaptation and validation of the Portuguese version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009, 17:1156-1162.
• [14]Nakamura N, Takeuchi R, Sawaguchi T, Ishikawa H, Saito T, Goldhahn S: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Japanese Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). J Orthop Sci 2011, 16:516-523.
• [15]Draper V, Ladd C: Subjective evaluation of function following moderately accelerated rehabilitation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed knees. J Athl Train 1993, 28:38-41.
• [16]Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD: SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user’s manual. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1994.
• [18]Żołnierczyk-Zreda D: The Polish version of the SF-36v2 questionnaire for the quality of life assessment (article in Polish). Przegl Lek 2010, 67:1302-1307.
• [19]McHorney CA, Tarlov AR: Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995, 4:293-307.
• [20]Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR: Psychometric Theory. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
• [21]Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
• [22]Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM: On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003, 12:349-362.
• [23]Atkinson G, Nevill AM: Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998, 26:217-238.
• [24]de Vet HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ: Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001, 17:479-487.
• [25]de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM: Minimally important change developed by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 2007, 16:131-142.
• [26]Roos EM, Lohmander LS: The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:64. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R: How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Edited by Spilker B. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
• [28]Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF: Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989, 27(3 Suppl):S178-S189.
• [29]Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB: The first results from the Danish ACL reconstruction registry: epidemiologic and 2 year follow-up results from 5,818 knee ligament reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009, 17:117-124.
• [30]Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL: Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 1991, 12:142S-158S.
• [31]Consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments http://www.cosmin.nl/index.php webcite
• [32]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010, 10:22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Angst F: The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:152. BioMed Central Full Text