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

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.</p

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

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

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

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.</p

Measurement Properties of Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Rating Scale, and Pain Severity Subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory in Patients With Low Back Pain:A Systematic Review

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Pain Severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-PS)] are the most frequently used instruments to measure pain intensity in low back pain (LBP). However, their measurement properties in this population have not been systematically reviewed. The goal of this study was to provide such systematic evidence synthesis. Six electronic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Google Scholar) were searched (July 2017). Studies assessing any measurement property in patients with non-specific LBP were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. For each measurement property: evidence quality was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low (GRADE approach); results were classified as sufficient, insufficient or inconsistent. Ten studies assessed the VAS, 13 the NRS, four the BPI-PS. The three instruments displayed low or very low quality evidence for content validity. High quality evidence was only available for NRS insufficient measurement error. Moderate evidence was available for: NRS inconsistent responsiveness, BPI-PS sufficient structural validity and internal consistency, and BPI-PS inconsistent construct validity. All VAS measurement properties were underpinned by no, low or very low quality evidence, likewise the other measurement properties of NRS and BPI-PS

PROMIS Physical Function short forms display item- and scale-level characteristics at least as good as the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in patients with chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To compare dimensionality, item-level characteristics, scale-level reliability and construct validity of PROMIS® Physical Function short forms (PROMIS-PF) and 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-24) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Secondary care center for rehabilitation and rheumatology. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with non-specific LBP ≥ 3 months (n = 768). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dutch versions of the 4-, 6-, 8-, 10- and 20-item PROMIS-PF, and of the RMDQ-24. RESULTS: Mean age was 49 years (±13), 77% female, 54% displayed pain for more than 5 years. PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8 and RMDQ-24 exhibited sufficient unidimensionality (confirmatory factor analysis: CFI >0.950, TLI >0.950 and RMSEA 0.001). Two-parameter item response theory models found two items with low discrimination for RMDQ-24. All other instruments had adequate fit statistics and item parameters. PROMIS-PF-20 displayed the best scale-level reliability. Construct validity was sufficient for all instruments as all hypotheses on expected correlations with other instruments, and differences between relevant subgroups, were met. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8 and RMDQ-24 exhibited better unidimensionality, whereas PROMIS-PF-4, PROMIS-PF-6 PROMIS-PF-8 and PROMIS-PF-10 showed superior item-level characteristics. PROMIS-PF-20 was the instrument with the best scale-level reliability. This study warrants assessment of other measurement properties of PROMIS-PF short forms in comparison to disease-specific physical functioning instruments in LBP

Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline

Objectives: Once a core outcome set (COS) has been defined, it is important to achieve consensus on how these outcomes should be measured. The aims of this systematic review were to gain insight into the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether methods have improved following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)/Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guideline publication. Study Design and Setting: Eligible articles, which were identified from the annual COMET systematic review, concerned any COS development studies that provided a recommendation on how to measure the outcomes included in the COS. Data were extracted on the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments in accordance with the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Results: Of the 118 studies included in the review, 48% used more than one source of information when finding outcome measurement instruments, and 74% performed some form of quality assessment of the measurement instruments. Twenty-three studies recommended one single instrument for each core outcome included in the COS. Clinical experts and public representatives were involved in selecting instruments in 62% and 28% of studies, respectively. Conclusion: Methods used to select outcome measurement instruments have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Going forward, COS developers should ensure that recommended outcome measurement instruments have sufficient content validity. In addition, COS developers should recommend one instrument for each core outcome to contribute to the overarching goal of uniformity in outcome reporting

Systematic Review of the Measurement Properties of Tools Used to Measure Behaviour Problems in Young Children with Autism

BackgroundBehaviour problems are common in young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There are many different tools used to measure behavior problems but little is known about their validity for the population.ObjectivesTo evaluate the measurement properties of behaviour problems tools used in evaluation of intervention or observational research studies with children with ASD up to the age of six years.MethodsBehaviour measurement tools were identified as part of a larger, two stage, systematic review. First, sixteen major electronic databases, as well as grey literature and research registers were searched, and tools used listed and categorized. Second, using methodological filters, we searched for articles examining the measurement properties of the tools in use with young children with ASD in ERIC, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The quality of these papers was then evaluated using the COSMIN checklist.ResultsWe identified twelve tools which had been used to measure behaviour problems in young children with ASD, and fifteen studies which investigated the measurement properties of six of these tools. There was no evidence available for the remaining six tools. Two questionnaires were found to be the most robust in their measurement properties, the Child Behavior Checklist and the Home Situations Questionnaire—Pervasive Developmental Disorders version.ConclusionsWe found patchy evidence on reliability and validity, for only a few of the tools used to measure behaviour problems in young children with ASD. More systematic research is required on measurement properties of tools for use in this population, in particular to establish responsiveness to change which is essential in measurement of outcomes of intervention.PROSPERO Registration NumberCRD4201200222

Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes Adaptively: Multidimensionality Matters!

As there is currently a marked increase in the use of both unidimensional (UCAT) and multidimensional computerized adaptive testing (MCAT) in psychological and health measurement, the main aim of the present study is to assess the incremental value of using MCAT rather than separate UCATs for each dimension. Simulations are based on empirical data that could be considered typical for health measurement: a large number of dimensions (4), strong correlations among dimensions (.77-.87), and polytomously scored response data. Both variable- (SE <.316, SE <.387) and fixed-length conditions (total test length of 12, 20, or 32 items) are studied. The item parameters and variance–covariance matrix Φ are estimated with the multidimensional graded response model (GRM). Outcome variables include computerized adaptive test (CAT) length, root mean square error (RMSE), and bias. Both simulated and empirical latent trait distributions are used to sample vectors of true scores. MCATs were generally more efficient (in terms of test length) and more accurate (in terms of RMSE) than their UCAT counterparts. Absolute average bias was highest for variable-length UCATs with termination rule SE <.387. Test length of variable-length MCATs was on average 20% to 25% shorter than test length across separate UCATs. This study showed that there are clear advantages of using MCAT rather than UCAT in a setting typical for health measurement

Determinants of the clinical course of musculoskeletal complaints in general practice: design of a cohort study

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal complaints are frequent and have large consequences for public health. Information about the prognosis after presentation in general practice is far from complete. Knowledge about determinants of the clinical course of musculoskeletal complaints is essential for management decisions and to inform patients about their prognosis. The purpose of this study is to provide information about the prognosis of musculoskeletal complaints other than low back pain by studying the course of these complaints in general practice and to identify determinants of this course. METHODS: Patients of 18 years and older, who present in general practice with a new episode of a musculoskeletal complaint of the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, arm, hip, knee, ankle or foot, are recruited by their general practitioner (GP). Participants will receive complaint-specific questionnaires by mail at baseline and after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. The following putative determinants of the course of the complaints will be investigated: sociodemographic characteristics, characteristics of the complaint, psychosocial job characteristics, physical workload, physical activity during leisure time, pain coping, mood, kinesiophobia, social support, optimism. The primary outcomes are perceived recovery, pain, functional status, sick leave and overall quality of life