BACKGROUND: For knee-related surgery, there is a great demand for internationally useable subjective scoring systems. Before such measurements can be used, they should be translated and validated for the population they are used on. For the Dutch population, only the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Oxford 12 Questionnaire have been validated. However, these scores can only be used regarding osteoarthritis of the knee. In 2001, the International Knee Documentation Committee presented the Subjective Knee Form, which is a knee-specific rather than a disease-specific questionnaire. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis/symptom prevalence); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The authors describe the translation procedure and validation of the Dutch Subjective Knee Form. After a forward-backward translation protocol, the reliability, validity, and content validity were tested. The responses of 145 consecutive knee patients on 2 questionnaires containing the Short Form-36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Oxford 12 Questionnaire score, a visual analog scale, and the Dutch International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form were used. Reliability was tested by measuring the test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Validity was tested by correlating the questionnaire to the other outcome measurements, and content validity was tested by measuring the floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: The reliability proved excellent with an intraclass coefficient of 0.96 for test-retest. Internal consistency was strong (Cronbach alpha, .92). The construct, convergent, and divergent validities were good. The content validity was good; no floor or ceiling effect occurred. CONCLUSION: The validation procedure shows that the Dutch International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form is an excellent evaluation instrument for Dutch patients with knee-related injuries.
BACKGROUND: For knee-related surgery, there is a great demand for internationally useable subjective scoring systems. Before such measurements can be used, they should be translated and validated for the population they are used on. For the Dutch population, only the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Oxford 12 Questionnaire have been validated. However, these scores can only be used regarding osteoarthritis of the knee. In 2001, the International Knee Documentation Committee presented the Subjective Knee Form, which is a knee-specific rather than a disease-specific questionnaire. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis/symptom prevalence); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The authors describe the translation procedure and validation of the Dutch Subjective Knee Form. After a forward-backward translation protocol, the reliability, validity, and content validity were tested. The responses of 145 consecutive knee patients on 2 questionnaires containing the Short Form-36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Oxford 12 Questionnaire score, a visual analog scale, and the Dutch International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form were used. Reliability was tested by measuring the test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Validity was tested by correlating the questionnaire to the other outcome measurements, and content validity was tested by measuring the floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: The reliability proved excellent with an intraclass coefficient of 0.96 for test-retest. Internal consistency was strong (Cronbach alpha, .92). The construct, convergent, and divergent validities were good. The content validity was good; no floor or ceiling effect occurred. CONCLUSION: The validation procedure shows that the Dutch International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form is an excellent evaluation instrument for Dutch patients with knee-related injuries.
Authors: Catherine Van Der Straeten; Erik Witvrouw; Tine Willems; Johan Bellemans; Jan Victor Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: S van Grinsven; R E H van Cingel; C J M Holla; C J M van Loon Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Michèle N J Keizer; Roy A G Hoogeslag; Jos J A M van Raay; Egbert Otten; Reinoud W Brouwer Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Natalie J Collins; Devyani Misra; David T Felson; Kay M Crossley; Ewa M Roos Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Duncan E Meuffels; Michelle T Poldervaart; Ron L Diercks; Alex W F M Fievez; Thomas W Patt; Cor P van der Hart; Eric R Hammacher; Fred van der Meer; Edwin A Goedhart; Anton F Lenssen; Sabrina B Muller-Ploeger; Margreet A Pols; Daniel B F Saris Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 3.717