Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validity and reliability of the Persian versions of WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index have not been translated and validated for Iranian patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip. The aim of this study was to validate the Persian form of WOMAC OA Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index and to assess their test–retest reliability and convergent validity. Forward/backward translations and consensus panels were conducted to obtain the Persian versions of WOMAC OA Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index. A non-probability sample of 116 patients with knee/hip osteoarthritis was asked to complete the WOMAC OA Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index as well as Medical Outcomes Study—20-Item Short Form (SF-20) questionnaires, a visual analogue scales (VAS) of pain and demographic information form. Internal consistency (using Cronbach’s alpha) and convergent validity (by examining the Pearson’s correlation coefficients) were evaluated to determine the psychometric properties of the questionnaires. In order to evaluate test–retest reliability, 20 randomly selected patients completed the questionnaires, on a second occasion, 7–10 days later. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients for the WOMAC OA Index and Algofunctional Index subscales ranged from 0.63 to 0.94 and from 0.53 to 0.96, respectively. Statistically significant correlations were found between WOMAC OA Index, Algofunctional Index and SF-20 subscales and VAS for pain. The Persian version of WOMAC demonstrated a more acceptable validity, internal consistency and reliability compared with the Lequesne Algofunctional Index. However, both indices are valid and reliable instruments for evaluating the OA severity of knee/hip in Iran.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goncalvesyz RS, Cabriy J, Pinheirox JP, Ferreirak PL (2009) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Portuguese version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Osteoarthr Cartil 17:1156–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arden N, Cooper C (2006) Osteoarthritis handbook. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lawrence RC, Hochberg MC, Kelsey JL et al (1989) Estimates of the prevalence of selected arthritic and musculoskeletal diseases in the United States. J Rheumatol 16:427–441

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Basaran S, Guzel R, Seydaoglu G, Guler-Uysal F (2010) Validity, reliability, and comparison of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index in Turkish patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 29:749–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lequesne M (1991) Indices of severity and disease activity for osteoarthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 20(6 Suppl 2):48–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Meenan RF, Gertman PM, Mason JH (1980) Measuring health status in arthritis. The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Arthritis Rheum 23:146–152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A et al (2002) Validation of the Spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 21:466–471

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bellamy N (2008) Principles of outcome assessment. In: Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, Weisman MH (eds) Rheumatology, 4th edn. Mosby Elsevier, Spain, pp 12–20

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lequesne MG, Mery C, Samson M, Gerard P (1987) Indexes of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Scand J Rheumatol 65(Suppl):85–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bellamy N. WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Available at: http://www.womac.org/womac/index.htm#asiapacific. Access date: 2/11/2011

  13. Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K et al (1986) Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum 29:1039–1049

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J (1999) Generic and condition specific outcome measures for people with OA of the knee. Rheumatology 38:870–877

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bellamy N (2003) WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index user guide IX. Brisbane, Australia

  16. Lequesne MG (1997) The algofunctional indices for hip and knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 24:779–781

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jones EG, Kay M (1992) Instrumentation in cross-cultural research. Nurs Res 41:186–188

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1417–1432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE (1988) The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 26:724–735

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Stewart AL, Sherbourne CD, Hays RD et al (1992) Developing and testing the MOS 20-Item Short-Form Survey: a general population application in measuring functioning and wellbeing. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr (eds) The medical outcome study approach. Dule University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stewart AL, Ware JE, Brook RH (1982) Construction and scoring of aggregate functional status measures, vol 1. Rand Corp, Santa Monica, Publication no. R2551-I-HHS

    Google Scholar 

  22. Robb JC, Young LT, Cooke RG, Joffe RT (1998) Gender differences in patients with bipolar disorder influence outcome in the Medical Outcomes Survey (SF-20) subscale scores. J Affect Disord 49:189–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Aalto AM, Aro S, Ohinmma A, Aro AR, Mähönen M (1997) The validation of the SF-20 instrument for health related quality of life in the Finnish general population. STAKES, National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health. 37/1997, Helsinki, Finland

  24. Hanninen J, Takala J, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S (1998) Quality of life in NIDDM patients assessed with the SF-20 questionnaire. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 42:17–27

    Google Scholar 

  25. Scharloo M, Kaptein AA, Weinman J, Hazes JM, Willems LNA, Bergman W, Rooijmans HGM (1998) Illness perceptions, coping and functioning in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and psoriasis. J Psychosom Res 44:573–585

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith MY, Feldman J, Kelly P, DeHovitz JA, Chirgwin K, Minkoff H (1996) Health-related quality of life of HIV-infected women: evidence for the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 20. Qual Life Res 5:47–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kempen GI, Ormel J, Brilman EI, Relyveld J (1997) Adaptive responses among Dutch elderly: the impact of eight chronic medical conditions on health-related quality of life. Am J Publ Health 87:38–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Flandry F, Hunt JP, Terry GC, Hughston JC (1991) Analysis of subjective knee complaints using visual analog scales. Am J Sports Med 19:112–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Guermazi M, Poiraudeau S, Yahia M, Mezganni M, Fermanian J, Elleuch MH, Revel M (2004) Translation, adaptation and validation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for an Arab population: the Sfax modified WOMAC. Osteoarthr Cartil 12:459–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stucki G, Sangha O, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall A, Dick W, Theiler R (1998) Comparison of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Osteoarthritis Index and a self-report format of the self-administered Lequesne-Algofunctional Index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 6:79–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kuptniratsaikul V, Rattanachaiyanont M (2007) Validation of a modified Thai version of the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index for knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 26:1641–1645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bae SC, Lee HS, Yun HR, Kim TH, Yoo DH, Kim SY (2001) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) and Lequesne osteoarthritis indices for clinical research. Osteoarthr Cartil 9:746–750

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Tuzun EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Daskapan A, Bayramoglu M (2005) Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Osteoarthr Cartil 13:28–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Salaffi F, Leardini G, Canesi B, Mannoni A, Fioravanti A, Caporali R, Lapadula G, Punzi L (2003) Reliability and validity of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index in Italian patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthr Cartil 11:551–560

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all OA patients who participated in the study.

Disclosures

Prof. Nicholas Bellamy is the registered copyright and trademark holder of the WOMAC Index.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Islamic Azad University-Sanandaj Branch, Pasdaran Street, Sanandaj, Iran, 6617777541

    Haidar Nadrian, Rahmatollah Moradzadeh & Kaveh Bahmanpour

  2. Tohid Hospital, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran

    Nasrin Moghimi

  3. School of Psychology and Training Sciences, Payam-e-Noor University-Sanandaj Branch, Sanandaj, Iran

    Elham Nadrian

  4. School of Health and Health Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Abedin Iranpour

  5. Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine (CONROD), University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Nicholas Bellamy

Authors
  1. Haidar Nadrian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nasrin Moghimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elham Nadrian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rahmatollah Moradzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kaveh Bahmanpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abedin Iranpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nicholas Bellamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haidar Nadrian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nadrian, H., Moghimi, N., Nadrian, E. et al. Validity and reliability of the Persian versions of WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index. Clin Rheumatol 31, 1097–1102 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-012-1983-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-012-1983-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation