Validation of a proposed WOMAC short form for patients with hip osteoarthritis

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Miren Orive²  Carlota Las Hayas²  Antonio Escobar¹  José M Quintana²  Amaia Bilbao³ 

[1] Research Unit, 'Basurto' Hospital-CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain;Research Unit, 'Galdakao-Usansolo' Hospital-CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Galdakao, Bizkaia, Spain;Basque Foundation for Health Innovation and Research (BIOEF)-CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Sondika, Bizkaia, Spain

关键词: Rasch analysis;    Responsiveness;    Validity;    Reliability;    Hip replacement;    Short form;    WOMAC;   

Others  :  826437
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-9-75

 received in 2011-04-06, accepted in 2011-09-21,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

The aims of this study were to propose a Spanish Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) short form based on previously shortened versions and to study its validity, reliability, and responsiveness for patients with hip osteoarthritis undergoing total hip replacement (THR).

Methods

Prospective observational study of two independent cohorts (788 and 445 patients, respectively). Patients completed the WOMAC and the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaires before THR and 6 months afterward. Patients received the questionnaires by mailing, and two reminder letters were sent to patients who had not replied the questionnaire. Based on two studies from the literature, we selected the two shortened domains, the pain domain composed of three items and the function domain composed of eight items. Thus, we proposed an 11-items WOMAC short form. A complete validation process was performed, including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis, and a study of reliability, responsiveness, and agreement measured by the Bland-Altman approach.

Results

The mean age was about 69 years and about 49% were women. CFA analyses confirmed the two-factor model. The pain and function domains fit the Rasch model. Stability was supported with similar results in both cohorts. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were high, 0.74 and 0.88. The highest correlations in convergent validity were found with the bodily pain and physical function SF-36 domains. Significant differences were found according to different pain and function severity scales, supporting known-groups validity. Responsiveness parameters showed large changes (effect sizes, 2.11 and 2.29). Agreement between the WOMAC long and short forms was adequate.

Conclusions

Since short questionnaires result in improved patient compliance and response rates, it is very useful to have a shortened WOMAC version with the same good psychometric properties as the original version. The Spanish WOMAC short form is valid, reliable, and responsive for patients undergoing THR, and most importantly, the first WOMAC short version proposed in Spanish. Because of its simplicity and ease of application, the short form is a good alternative to the original WOMAC questionnaire and it would further enhance its acceptability and usefulness in clinical research, clinical trials, and in routine practice within the orthopaedic community.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Bilbao et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW: Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988, 15:1833-1840.
• [2]Anderson JG, Wixson RL, Tsai D, Stulberg SD, Chang RW: Functional outcome and patient satisfaction in total knee patients over the age of 75. J Arthroplasty 1996, 11:831-840.
• [3]Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P, Paul J, Dittus R, Croxford R, Katz B, Bombardier C, Heck D, Freund D: Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. Results of the knee replacement patient outcomes research team study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1998, 80:163-173.
• [4]Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J: Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheumatol 1988, 1:95-108.
• [5]Hawker G, Melfi CA, Paul J, Green R, Bombardier C: Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. J Rheumatol 1995, 22:1193-1196.
• [6]Bellamy N: WOMAC osteoarthritis index: a user's guide, IV. London; 2000.
• [7]McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Rheum 2001, 45:453-461.
• [8]Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Azkárate J, Güenaga JI: Validation of the Spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clin Rheumatol 2002, 21:466-471.
• [9]Quintana JM, Escobar A, Bilbao A, Arostegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I: Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005, 13:1076-1083.
• [10]Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Aróstegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I: Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007, 15:273-280.
• [11]Tubach F, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Dougados M, Bellamy N, Ravaud P: Using patients' and rheumatologists' opinions to specify a short form of the WOMAC function subscale. Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 64:75-79.
• [12]Moran LA, Guyatt GH, Norman GR: Establishing the minimal number of items for a responsive, valid, health-related quality of life instrument. J Clin Epidemiol 2001, 54:571-579.
• [13]Coste J, Guillemin F, Pouchot J, Fermanian J: Methodological approaches to shortening composite measurement scales. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:247-252.
• [14]Auw Yang KG, Raijmakers NJH, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ, Saris DB: Validation of the short-form WOMAC function scale for the evaluation of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg 2007, 89:50-56.
• [15]Kalantar JS, Tally NJ: The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: a randomised study. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52:1117-1122.
• [16]Dillman DA: Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1975.
• [17]Ryser L, Wright BD, Aeschlimann A, Mariacher-Gehler S, Stucki G: A new look at the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index using Rasch analysis. Arthritis Care Res 1999, 12:331-335.
• [18]Sun Y, Sturmer T, Gunther KP, Brenner H: Reliability and validity of clinical outcome measurements of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: a review of the literature. Clin Rheumatol 1997, 16:185-198.
• [19]Davis AM, Badley EM, Beaton DE, Kopec J, Wright JG, Young NL, Williams JI: Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index: results from community and arthroplasty samples. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:1076-1083.
• [20]Rothenfluh DA, Reedwisch D, Müller U, Ganz R, Tennant A, Leunig M: Construct validity of a 12-item WOMAC for assessment of femoro-acetabular impingement and osteoarthritis of the hip. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008, 16:1032-1038.
• [21]Whitehouse SL, Lingard EA, Katz JN, Learmonth ID: Development and testing of a reduced WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg 2003, 85:706-711.
• [22]Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30:473-483.
• [23]Quintana JM, Arostegui I, Azkarate J, Goenaga JI, Elexpe X, Letona J, Arcelay A: Evaluation of explicit criteria for total hip joint replacement. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:1200-1208.
• [24]Alonso J, Prieto L, Anto JM: The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc) 1995, 104:771-776.
• [25]Baron G, Tubach F, Ravaud P, Logeart I, Dougados M: Validation of a short form of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale in hip and knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57:633-638.
• [26]Batista-Foguet J, Coenders G, Alonso J: Confirmatory factor analysis. Its role on the validation of health related questionnaires. Med Clin 2004, 122(Suppl 1):21-27.
• [27]Devins GM, Dion R, Pelletier LG, Shapiro CM, Abbey S, Raiz LR, Binik YM, McGowan P, Kutner NG, Beanlands H, Edworthy SM: Structure of lifestyle disruptions in chronic disease: a confirmatory factor analysis of the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale. Med Care 2001, 39:1097-1104.
• [28]Mulaik SA: Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychol Bull 1989, 105:430-445.
• [29]Hatcher L: Developing measurement models with confirmatory factor analysis. In: A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS® System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modelling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1994.
• [30]Rasch G: Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1960.
• [31]Streiner D, Norman G: Health Measurement Scales. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.
• [32]Tesio L: Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2003, 35:105-115.
• [33]Linacre J: A User's Guide to WINSTEPS. Chicago: MESA Press; 2009.
• [34]Cook K, Teal C, Bjorner JB, Cella D, Chang CH, Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Hays RD, McHorney CA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Raczek AE, Teresi JA, Reeve BB: IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary. Qual Life Res 2007, 16:121-132.
• [35]Cronbach LJ: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
• [36]Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH: Psychometric Theory. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
• [37]Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2000.
• [38]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, 46:1417-1432.
• [39]Cohen J: A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992, 112:155-159.
• [40]Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1:307-310.
• [41]Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust: Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life res 2002, 11:193-205.
• [42]Whitehouse SL, Crawford RW, Learmonth ID: Validation for the reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function scale. J Orthop Surg 2008, 16:50-53.
• [43]Fairclough DL: Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2002.