B Gandek1, E M Roos2, P D Franklin3, J E Ware4. 1. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA; John Ware Research Group, Watertown, MA, USA. Electronic address: barbara.gandek@umassmed.edu. 2. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: eroos@health.sdu.dk. 3. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. Electronic address: patricia.franklin@umassmed.edu. 4. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA; John Ware Research Group, Watertown, MA, USA. Electronic address: john.ware@jwrginc.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reliability, validity and responsiveness of KOOS-12, a 12-item short form of the 42-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) that provides Pain, Function and Quality of Life (QOL) scale scores and a summary knee impact score. DESIGN: Data from 1,392 knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients from the FORCE-TJR research cohort who completed KOOS before and 6 and 12 months after total knee replacement (TKR) were analyzed. KOOS-12 includes a pain frequency item and three items measuring pain during increasingly difficult (sitting/lying, walking, stairs) activities; function items about standing, rising from sitting, getting in/out of a car, and twisting/pivoting; and the 4-item KOOS QOL scale. Percent computable scale scores, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency reliability, validity (scale correlations, tests of known groups validity using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)) and responsiveness (effect sizes, standardized response means) were compared for the KOOS-12, full-length KOOS, KOOS-PS and KOOS, JR. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability was above 0.70 for all KOOS-12 scales and ≥0.90 for the KOOS-12 Summary score. Validity and responsiveness of KOOS-12 Pain, Function and QOL scales was satisfactory and reached similar conclusions as comparable full-length KOOS scales. The KOOS-12 Summary score was most responsive in discriminating between groups who differed in global ratings of post-TKR change in physical capabilities and had the highest effect sizes and standardized response means. CONCLUSIONS: KOOS-12 was a reliable and valid alternative to KOOS in TKR patients with moderate to severe OA and provided three domain-specific and summary knee impact scores with substantially reduced respondent burden.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reliability, validity and responsiveness of KOOS-12, a 12-item short form of the 42-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) that provides Pain, Function and Quality of Life (QOL) scale scores and a summary knee impact score. DESIGN: Data from 1,392 knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients from the FORCE-TJR research cohort who completed KOOS before and 6 and 12 months after total knee replacement (TKR) were analyzed. KOOS-12 includes a pain frequency item and three items measuring pain during increasingly difficult (sitting/lying, walking, stairs) activities; function items about standing, rising from sitting, getting in/out of a car, and twisting/pivoting; and the 4-item KOOS QOL scale. Percent computable scale scores, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency reliability, validity (scale correlations, tests of known groups validity using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)) and responsiveness (effect sizes, standardized response means) were compared for the KOOS-12, full-length KOOS, KOOS-PS and KOOS, JR. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability was above 0.70 for all KOOS-12 scales and ≥0.90 for the KOOS-12 Summary score. Validity and responsiveness of KOOS-12 Pain, Function and QOL scales was satisfactory and reached similar conclusions as comparable full-length KOOS scales. The KOOS-12 Summary score was most responsive in discriminating between groups who differed in global ratings of post-TKR change in physical capabilities and had the highest effect sizes and standardized response means. CONCLUSIONS: KOOS-12 was a reliable and valid alternative to KOOS in TKR patients with moderate to severe OA and provided three domain-specific and summary knee impact scores with substantially reduced respondent burden.
Authors: Ilana N Ackerman; Ian A Harris; Kara Cashman; Neville Rowden; Michelle Lorimer; Stephen E Graves Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Stephen G Zak; Nishanth Muthusamy; Chelsea Sicat; James Slover; Ran Schwarzkopf Journal: Indian J Orthop Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 1.033
Authors: Samuel J MacDessi; Gregory C Wernecke; Durga Bastiras; Tamara Hooper; Emma Heath; Michelle Lorimer; Ian Harris Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Yining Lu; Alexander Beletsky; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Bhavik H Patel; Kelechi R Okoroha; Nikhil Verma; Brian Cole; Brian Forsythe Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-10-24
Authors: Ian A Harris; Kara Cashman; Michelle Lorimer; Yi Peng; Ilana Ackerman; Emma Heath; Stephen E Graves Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 3.240