GÖKHAN POLAT, DERYA ÇELİK, Hilal ÇİL, Mehmet ERDİL, MEHMET AŞIK

Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish version of Hip Outcome Score

Background: Hip Outcome Score (HOS), originally developed in English, assesses the severity of hippathology. To date, no Turkish version of the questionnaire exists.Purpose: The aim of our study was to translate the HOS into Turkish and verify its psychometricproperties.Methods: The translation and cultural adaptation were performed according to international recommendations inŞve stages: The HOS was translated into Turkish, consistent with published methodological guidelines. The process included 2 forward translations, followed by the synthesis of thesetranslations, and 2 backward translations, followed by an analysis of the translations and creation of theŞnal version. The measurement properties of the Turkish HOS (internal consistency, construct validity,ﬂoor and ceiling effects and responsiveness) were tested in 130 patients.Results: A committee consisting of the four translators agreed with theŞnal version of the HOS (HOS-Tr).The internal consistency and the test-retest reliability of the HOS-Tr-ADL and HOS-Tr-S subscales wereexcellent. Correlations between the HOS-Tr and convergent validity of the with HHS and NAHS were fairto good. The responsiveness of the HOS-Tr-ADL and HOS-Tr-S subscales were 3.4 to 1.4 for patientstreated with surgically and 0.9 to 1.1 for patients treated with non-surgically.Conclusion: The HOS-Tr is understandable, reliably, valid, and responsive for Turkish-speaking patientswith hip pathology.Level of Evidence: Level 3 Diagnostic Study.

___

1. Bellamy N. The WOMAC knee and hip osteoarthritis indices: development,validation, globalization and influence on the development of the AUSCANhand osteoarthritis indices. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5 Suppl 39):S148eS153.

2. Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, Lee JA, McCarthy JC. The nonarthritichip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003Jan;406(1):75e83.

3. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Frost S, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray D. Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Nov;83(8): 1125e1129.

4. Klassbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome €score. An extension of the western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritisindex. Scand J Rheumatol. 2003;32(1):46e51.

5. Mohtadi NG, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME, et al. Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. The Development and validation of a selfadministered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic hip disease: the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):595e605.

6. Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcomescore. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1304e1311.

7. Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score in hiparthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(8):822e826.

8. Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(6):676e682.

9. Celik D, Can C, Aslan Y, Ceylan HH, Bilsel K, Ozdincler AR. Translation, crossculturaladaptation, and validation of the Turkish version of the Harris HipScore. Hip Int. 2014;24(5):473e479.

10. Tüzün EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Das¸ kapan A, Bayramoglu M. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2005 Jan;13(1):28e33.

11. Tugay BU, Tu gay N, Güney H, Hazar Z, Yüksel _ I, Atilla B. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of Oxford hip score. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):879e889.

12. Yilmaz O, Gul ED, Bodur H. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of theTurkish version of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score-physicalfunction short-form (HOOS-PS). Rheumatol Int. 2014 Jan;34(1):43e49.

13. Rolfson O, Eresian Chenok K, Bohm E, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures working group of the international society of arthroplasty registries. Patientreportedoutcome measures in arthroplasty registries. Acta Orthop. 2016Jul;87(Suppl 1):3e8.

14. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process ofcross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2000;25(24):3186e3191.

15. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabularfractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a newmethod of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51(4):737e755.

16. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed formeasurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol.2007;60(2):34e42.

17. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categoricaldata. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159e174.

18. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1994.

19. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM. Current challenges in clinimetrics. J ClinEpidemiol. 2003;56(12):1137e1141.

20. Lee YK, Ha YC, Martin RL, Hwang DS, Koo KH. Transcultural adaptation of the Korean version of the hip outcome score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Nov;23(11):3426e3431.

21. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Miozzari HH, Mannion AF, Leunig M. The German Hip Outcome Score: validation in patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(3):339e345.

22. Seijas R, Sallent A, Ruiz-Iban MA, et al. Validation of the Spanish version of thehip outcome score: a multicenter study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 May;13(12):70e75.32