Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Psychometric properties of the 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12) Spanish version for people with knee osteoarthritis

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

Abstract

To evaluate the validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change of the 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Spanish version questionnaire. This study was based on a questionnaire validation design. A cross-sectional survey of 199 patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and ten healthy controls was studied to evaluate the validity and reliability of KOOS-12. One hundred and sixteen patients were assessed for test-retest reliability, and 38 patients were included for a responsiveness assessment. Structural validity was assessed by the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Item response theory-based methods were used to determine the performance of the items. Internal consistency reliability was appropriate for all scales (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85–0.94). The intra-class correlation coefficient of KOOS-12 scales ranged from 0.60 to 0.71. The CFA and generalized partial credit model showed that KOOS-12 scales presented a good overall model fit. No differential item functioning was found. Convergent validity was demonstrated by strong correlations (Spearman’s rho ≥ 0.70) with KOOS, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation form (IKDC), and Knee Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Known-groups validity showed that KOOS-12 well discriminated subgroups of patients (radiographic severity and nutritional status). Standardized response means for KOOS-12 scales were ≥ 0.75. Changes in KOOS-12 scales had a moderate to strong correlation (Pearson’s r ≥ 0.40) with the changes in the KOOS, ICOAP, and IKDC scales. The KOOS-12 Spanish version is a valid, reliable, and responsiveness to change questionnaire to measure patients’ opinions about their knee and associated problems in Mexican subjects with KOA.

Key Points

• KOOS-12 is a short self-reported measure that assesses patient’s opinions about the difficulties they experience due to problems with their knee and also covers aspects of pain, functional limitations, and knee-related quality of life.

• The Spanish version of KOOS-12 questionnaire is a valid instrument for measuring the patients’ opinions about their knee and associated problems, and is both reliable and responsiveness to change.

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

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Goncalves RS, Cabri J, Pinheiro JP, Ferreira PL, Gil J (2010) Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Portuguese version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score--physical function short-form (KOOS-PS). Osteoarthr Cartil 18(3):372–376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gandek B, Roos EM, Franklin PD, Ware JE Jr (2019) Item selection for 12-item short forms of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12) and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12). Osteoarthr Cartil 27(5):746–753

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tolk JJ, Janssen RPA, Prinsen CAC, Latijnhouwers D, van der Steen MC, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA et al (2019) The OARSI core set of performance-based measures for knee osteoarthritis is reliable but not valid and responsive. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(9):2898–2909

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM (2011) Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63(Suppl 11):S208–S228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin-Fernandez J, Garcia-Maroto R, Sanchez-Jimenez FJ, Bau-Gonzalez A, Valencia-Garcia H, Gutierrez-Teira B et al (2017) Validation of the Spanish version of the Oxford knee score and assessment of its utility to characterize quality of life of patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis: a multicentric study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 15(1):186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S (2003) Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Eckhard L, Munir S, Wood D, Talbot S, Brighton R, Walter B, Baré J (2020) The KOOS-12 shortform shows no ceiling effect, good responsiveness and construct validity compared to standard outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

  8. Gandek B, Roos EM, Franklin PD, Ware JE Jr (2019) A 12-item short form of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12): tests of reliability, validity and responsiveness. Osteoarthr Cartil 27(5):762–770

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K, Christy W, Cooke TD, Greenwald R, Hochberg M, Howell D, Kaplan D, Koopman W, Longley S, Mankin H, McShane DJ, Medsger T, Meenan R, Mikkelsen W, Moskowitz R, Murphy W, Rothschild B, Segal M, Sokoloff L, Wolfe F (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(8):1039–1049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN study design checklist for Patient.reported outcome measurement instruments 2019 [Available from: https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-study-designing-checklist_final.pdf

  12. Reeve BR, Fayers P (2005) Applying item response theory modelling for evaluating questionnaire itemscale properties. In: Fayers P, Hays H (eds) Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 55–73

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nguyen TH, Han HR, Kim MT, Chan KS (2014) An introduction to item response theory for patient-reported outcome measurement. Patient. 7(1):23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Edelen MO, Reeve BB (2007) Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Qual Life Res 16(Suppl 1):5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vaquero J, Longo UG, Forriol F, Martinelli N, Vethencourt R, Denaro V (2014) Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Spanish version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with chondral lesion of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(1):104–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bond M, Davis A, Lohmander S, Hawker G (2012) Responsiveness of the OARSI-OMERACT osteoarthritis pain and function measures. Osteoarthr Cartil 20(6):541–547

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vazquez-Barquero JL, Vazquez Bourgon E, Herrera Castanedo S, Saiz J, Uriarte M, Morales F et al (2000) Version en lengua espanola de un nuevo cuestionario de evaluacion de discapacidades de la OMS (WHO-DAS-II): fase inicial de desarrollo y estudio piloto. Grupo Cantabria en Discapacidades. Actas Esp Psiquiatr 28(2):77–87

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Roos EM, Abbott JH, Stratford P, Davis AM, Buchbinder R, Snyder-Mackler L, Henrotin Y, Thumboo J, Hansen P, Bennell KL (2013) OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 21(8):1042–1052

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V (2014) From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol 105(3):399–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nolte S, Coon C, Hudgens S, Verdam MGE (2019) Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS(R) Depression Item Bank: an illustration of classical test theory methods. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 3(1):46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, Crane PK, Teresi JA, Thissen D, Revicki DA, Weiss DJ, Hambleton RK, Liu H, Gershon R, Reise SP, Lai JS, Cella D (2007) Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 45(5 Suppl 1):S22–S31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 6(1):1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, J.S L, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. p. 136–62

  25. Alageel M, Al Turki A, Alhandi A, Alohali R, Alsalem R, Aleissa S (2020) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain Questionnaire. Sports Med Int Open 4(1):E8–E12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Panah SH, Baharlouie H, Rezaeian ZS, Hawker G (2016) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain Measure for the knee. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 21(4):417–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Baidya O, Prabhakar R, Wadhwa M, Baidya P (2018) Cross-cultural translation and validation of the Hindi version of the intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain scale in knee osteoarthritis patients. Ortho & Rheum Open Access 10:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chen W-H, Thissen D (1997) Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. J Educ Behav Stat 22(3):265–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Reise SP, Rodriguez A (2016) Item response theory and the measurement of psychiatric constructs: some empirical and conceptual issues and challenges. Psychol Med 46(10):2025–2039

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Stover AM, McLeod LD, Langer MM, Chen WH, Reeve BB (2019) State of the psychometric methods: patient-reported outcome measure development and refinement using item response theory. J Patient Rep Outcomes 3(1):50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Depaoli S, Tiemensma J, Felt JM (2018) Assessment of health surveys: fitting a multidimensional graded response model. Psychol Health Med 23(sup1):13–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Paek I, Cole K (2020) Using R for item response theory model applications. Routledge, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  33. Felt JM, Castaneda R, Tiemensma J, Depaoli S (2017) Using person fit statistics to detect outliers in survey research. Front Psychol 8:863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53(5):459–468

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ (2012) Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen 141(1):2–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dinno A (2015) Nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons in independent groups using Dunn’s test. Stata J 15(1):292–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Hall M, Terwee CB, Roos EM, Bennell KL (2012) Measurement properties of performance-based measures to assess physical function in hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthr Cartil 20(12):1548–1562

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Marconcin P, Espanha M, Yázigi F, Teles J (2015) Predictor of timed “Up-and-Go” test in elderly with knee osteoarthritis. In: Cabri J, Pezarat-Correia P, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support. 1. Lisbon, Portugal: Science and Technology Publications, Lda

  39. de Rezende MU, de Farias FES, da Silva CAC, Cernigoy CHA, de Camargo OP (2016) Objective functional results in patients with knee osteoarthritis submitted to a 2-day educational programme: a prospective randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2(1):e000200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, Syed KA, Mahomed NN (2009) Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population. Clin Rheumatol 28(3):253–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, Miller MW (2013) Sample size requirements for structural equation models: an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educ Psychol Meas 76(6):913–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Moshagen M, Musch J (2014) Sample size requirements of the robust weighted least squares estimator. Methodology. 10(2):60–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Servicio de Reumatología, Hospital General Regional número 1, Delegación Yucatán, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Calle 41 número 439 x 34, Colonia Industrial, 97150., Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico

    Gabriel Horta-Baas

  2. Programa de Maestría y Doctorado en Ciencias Médicas, Odontológicas y de la Salud, Doctorado en Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, Ciudad de México, Mexico

    Gabriel Horta-Baas

  3. Servicio de Traumatologia y Ortopedia, Hospital General Regional número 1, Delegación Yucatán, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico

    Rodrigo Vargas-Mena & Erik Alejandre

  4. Servicio de Reumatología, Hospital General de México “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”, Ciudad de México, Mexico

    Ingris Peláez-Ballestas

  5. Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México, Campus Norte Huixquilucan, Ciudad de México, Mexico

    María del Socorro Romero-Figueroa

  6. Servicio de Genética, Hospital General de México “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”, Ciudad de México, Mexico

    Gloria Queipo

  7. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

    Gloria Queipo

Authors
  1. Gabriel Horta-Baas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rodrigo Vargas-Mena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erik Alejandre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ingris Peláez-Ballestas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. María del Socorro Romero-Figueroa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gloria Queipo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization and design: Gabriel Horta-Baas; Rodrigo Vargas-Mena; Erik Alejandre; Ingris Peláez-Ballestas; María del Socorro Romero-Figueroa; and Gloria Queipo.

Provision of study materials or patients: Gabriel Horta-Baas; Rodrigo Vargas-Mena; and Erik Alejandre.

Analysis: Gabriel Horta-Baas; Ingris Peláez-Ballestas; María del Socorro Romero-Figueroa; and Gloria Queipo.

Data interpretation: Gabriel Horta-Baas; Rodrigo Vargas-Mena; Erik Alejandre; Ingris Peláez-Ballestas; María del Socorro Romero-Figueroa; and Gloria Queipo.

Manuscript writing: Gabriel Horta-Baas.

Manuscript review final approval: Gabriel Horta-Baas; Rodrigo Vargas-Mena; Erik Alejandre; Ingris Peláez-Ballestas; María del Socorro Romero-Figueroa; and Gloria Queipo.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Horta-Baas.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research ethics committee of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social approved this study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 45 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Horta-Baas, G., Vargas-Mena, R., Alejandre, E. et al. Psychometric properties of the 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12) Spanish version for people with knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 40, 1547–1558 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-020-05403-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-020-05403-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation