Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1192–1196 | Cite as

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale

  • Y. Bohu
  • S. KloucheEmail author
  • N. Lefevre
  • K. Webster
  • S. Herman



The aim of this study was to translate, adapt and validate in French the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI), a 12-item English language scale assessing the psychological impact of returning to sports after ACL reconstruction.


The ACL-RSI scale was forward and back translated, cross-culturally adapted and validated using international guidelines. The study population included all patients who were active in sports and underwent primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. The control group included subjects with no history of knee trauma. At the 6-month follow-up, the study population completed the ACL-RSI scale twice within 3–4 days, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. Statistical tests assessed the construct validity, discriminant validity, internal consistency, reliability and feasibility of the ACL-RSI scale.


Ninety-one patients with ACL tears and 98 control subjects were included: mean age 31.7 ± 8.1 and 21.8 ± 2, respectively. The ACL-RSI scores were correlated with all KOOS sub-categories (r = 0.22–0.64, p < 0.05) as well as the subjective IKDC score (r = 0.42, p < 0.00001). The mean scores of the study and control groups were significantly different (62.8 ± 19.4 vs. 89.6 ± 11.5, p < 0.00001), and scores were significantly better in patients who returned to the same sport (72.1 ± 21.4 vs. 60.3 ± 18.1, p = 0.008). Internal consistency was high (α = 0.96). Test–retest reproducibility was excellent: ρ = 0.90 (0.86–0.94), p < 0.00001. Administration time was 1.32 ± 0.7 mn, and all items were answered.


This study showed that the cross-cultural adaptation of the English version of the ACL-RSI was successful and validated in a French-speaking population. The discriminant capacity of the scale between patients who underwent reconstruction and healthy subjects was confirmed.

Level of evidence



ACL-RSI Psychological impact Return to sports ACL reconstruction 



The authors gratefully thank Ms Sonja Akriche and Ms Sophie Morland for the back translation and the software company who developed® software used in this study.

Conflict of interest


Supplementary material

167_2014_2942_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (249 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 249 kb)


  1. 1.
    Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF et al (2011) Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med 45:596–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA et al (2012) Return-to-sport outcomes at 2 to 7 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med 40:41–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA et al (2013) A systematic review of the psychological factors associated with returning to sport following injury. Br J Sports Med 47:1120–1126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA et al (2013) Psychological responses matter in returning to preinjury level of sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med 41:1549–1558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F et al (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186–3191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associetes, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Czuppon S, Racette BA, Klein SE et al (2014) Variables associated with return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 48:356–364CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delincé P, Ghafil D (2012) Anterior cruciate ligament tears: conservative or surgical treatment? A critical review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:48–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Eck CF, Schkrohowsky JG, Working ZM et al (2012) Prospective analysis of failure rate and predictors of failure after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft. Am J Sports Med 40:800–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fithian DC, Paxton EW, Stone ML et al (2005) Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Am J Sports Med 33:335–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (2003) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higgins LD, Taylor MK, Park D et al (2007) Fiabilité et validité du questionnaire d’évaluation subjective du genou de l’IKDC (Comité international de documentation du genou). Rev Rhum 74:1264–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kvist J, Sporrstedt K, Ek A et al (2005) Fear of re-injury: a hindrance for returning to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:393–397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kvist J, Osterberg A, Gauffin H et al (2013) Translation and measurement properties of the Swedish version of ACL-Return to Sports after Injury questionnaire. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:568–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Langford JL, Webster KE, Feller JA (2009) A prospective longitudinal study to assess psychological changes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Br J Sports Med 43:377–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ornetti P, Parratte S, Gossec L et al (2008) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in knee osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartil 16:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paterno MV, Rauh MJ, Schmitt LC et al (2012) Incidence of contralateral and ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after primary ACL reconstruction and return to sport. Clin J Sport Med 22:116–121CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petersen W, Zantop T (2013) Return to play following ACL reconstruction: survey among experienced arthroscopic surgeons (AGA instructors). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:969–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Webster KE, Feller JA, Lambros C (2008) Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Phys Ther Sport 9:9–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Bohu
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Klouche
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • N. Lefevre
    • 1
    • 2
  • K. Webster
    • 3
  • S. Herman
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut de l’Appareil Locomoteur NolletParisFrance
  2. 2.Clinique du Sport Paris VParisFrance
  3. 3.Musculoskeletal Research CenterLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations