Marju RAUKAS, Vahur METSNA, Marika TAMMARU

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Estonian version of the Oxford Knee Score

Objective: The aim of this study was to adapt the Estonian version of The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and test its psychometric properties. Methods: The original OKS questionnaire was translated into Estonian using the forward and back-translation method recommended in the literature. The face validity of the Estonian OKS was then tested. 150 consecutive patients who had undergone total knee replacement (TKR) received the Estonian version of OKS, the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain by mail twice with an interval of 1 month. OKS total score, its functional, and pain subscales were examined. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed. Reliability was evaluated by measuring test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Construct validity was measured by examining the correlation of OKS, its functional and pain subscales with VAS and the subscales of SF-36. Results: The Estonian version of OKS was assessed equivalent to the original and was satisfactorily accepted by patients on face validity testing. The Estonian OKS performed well on psychometric testing with good test-retest reliability (Spearman’s rho 0.8887, P < 0.001, for the overall score) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha for the overall score 0.9353 and 0.9177 on the first and second assessment, respectively). It showed expected correlations with SF-36 subscales (strongest with the physical functioning and pain subscales and weakest with the emotional functioning subscale) and a strong correlation (Spearman’s rho -0.8618 and -0.6967 on the first and second assessment respectively) with VAS for pain. A small proportion of patients demonstrated a ceiling value on both assessments, whereas a floor effect was not evident. Conclusion: The Estonian version of OKS is a reliable and valid instrument providing a standardized measure of patient-reported outcome for evaluating the results of TKR.

PDF

___

1. Davies AP. Rating systems for total knee replacement. Knee. 2002;9(4):261-266. 10.1016/S0968-0160(02)00095-9
2. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89-B(8):1010-1014. 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8. 19424
3. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg. 2003;80(1):63-69. 10. 1302/0301-620X.80B1.0800063
4. Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Translation and validation of the Oxford-12 Item Knee Score for use in Sweden. Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica. 2000;71(3):268-274. 10.1080/000164700317411861
5. Reito A, Järvistö A, Jämsen E, et al. Translation and validation of the 12-item Oxford knee score for use in Finland. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):1- 6. 10.1186/s12891-017-1405-8
6. The Oxford Knee Score [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 14]. Available from: https:// innovation.ox.ac.uk/outcome-measures/oxford-knee-score-oks/.
7. 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(24):3186-3191. 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
8. Murphy K, Davidshofer C. Psychological Testing. Principles and Applications. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Prentice Hall; 2005.
9. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. Br Med J. 1992;305 (6846):160-164. 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160
10. Eun IS, Kim OG, Kim CK. Validation of the Korean Version of the Oxford Knee Score in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):600-605. 10.1007/s11999-012-2564-4
11. Takeuchi R, Sawaguchi T, Nakamura N, Ishikawa H, Saito T, Goldhahn S. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Oxford 12-item knee score in Japanese. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(2):247-254. 10.1007/s00402- 010-1185-1
12. Herodes M. Quality of Life of People with Epilepsy in Estonia [Dissertation]. Tartu: Tartu University Press; 2002.
13. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(SUPPL. 11):S240–52.
14. Garin O. Ceiling Effect. In: Ac M, editor. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014. 631-633.
15. Tammaru M. Patient-reported Outcome Measurement in Rheumatoid Arthritis [Dissertation]. Tartu: Tartu University Press; 2006.
16. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;60(1):34-42. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
17. Tuğay BU, Tuğay N, Güney H, Kinikli GI, Yüksel I, Atilla B. Oxford knee score: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the turkish version in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50(2):198-206. 10. 3944/AOTT.2015.15.0127
18. Frost MH, Reeve BB, Liepa AM, Stauffer JW, Hays RD, Sloan JA. What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Heal. 2007;10(SUPPL. 2):94-105. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x