Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Translation, validation, and cross-cultural adaption of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) into German

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) was developed in order to investigate the health-related quality of life of patients with meniscal pathologies. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate the WOMET into German.

Methods

A standardized forward backward translation of the WOMET into German was first performed. One hundred ninety-two patients with isolated meniscal tears completed the German version of the WOMET as well as the Western Ontario McMasters University Arthritis Index, and the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Furthermore, reliability, construct validity, feasibility, internal consistency, ceiling, and floor effects were then calculated.

Results

Excellent feasibility (85.4% fully complete questionnaire), internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.92), and test–retest reliability (ICC, r = 0.90) were found. The standard error of measurement and the minimal detectable change were ±4.6 and 12.7 points, respectively. All predefined hypothesises were confirmed. No floor or ceiling effects were found.

Conclusions

The presented German version of the WOMET is a valid and reliable tool for investigating the health-related quality of life of German-speaking patients with meniscal pathologies.

Level of evidence

Cross-sectional study, Level II.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

WOMET:

Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool

WOMAC:

Western Ontario McMasters University Arthritis Index

KOOS:

Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

SEM:

Standard error of measurement

MDC:

Minimal detectable change

References

  1. Beirer M, Fiedler N, Huber S, Schmitt-Sody M, Lorenz S, Biberthaler P, Kirchhoff C (2015) The Munich Knee Questionnaire: development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for knee disorders. Arthroscopy 31:1522–1529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson N (1993) Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 2:451–459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Celik D, Demirel M, Kuş G, Erdil M, Özdinçler AR (2015) Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:816–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cronbach L (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Englund M, Niu J, Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Hunter DJ, Lynch JA, Lewis CE, Torner J, Nevitt MC, Zhang YQ, Felson DT (2007) Effect of meniscal damage on the development of frequent knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Arthritis Rheum 56:4048–4054

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Englund M, Roemer FW, Hayashi D, Crema MD, Guermazi A (2012) Meniscus pathology, osteoarthritis and the treatment controversy. Nat Rev Rheumatol 8:412–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ettema TP, Dröes R-M, de Lange J, Mellenbergh GJ, Ribbe MW (2005) A review of quality of life instruments used in dementia. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 14:675–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garratt AM, Brealey S, Gillespie WJ, Trial Team DAMASK (2004) Patient-assessed health instruments for the knee: a structured review. Rheumatol (Oxford Engl) 43:1414–1423

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Graham B, Green A, James M, Katz J, Swiontkowski M (2015) Measuring patient satisfaction in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:80–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guillemin F (1995) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol 24:61–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Haviv B, Bronak S, Kosashvili Y, Thein R (2016) Which patients are less likely to improve during the first year after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy? A multivariate analysis of 201 patients with prospective follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:1427–1431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim S, Bosque J, Meehan JP, Jamali A, Marder R (2011) Increase in outpatient knee arthroscopy in the United States: a comparison of National Surveys of Ambulatory Surgery, 1996 and 2006. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:994–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kirkley A, Griffin S, Whelan D (2007) The development and validation of a quality of life-measurement tool for patients with meniscal pathology: the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET). Clin J Sport Med 17:349–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38:27–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 19:539–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Naal FD, Sieverding M, Impellizzeri FM, von Knoch F, Mannion AF, Leunig M (2009) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted German Oxford hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:952–957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nunnally J, Bernstein I (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ruiz-Ibán MA, Seijas R, Sallent A, Ares O, Marín-Peña O, Muriel A, Cuéllar R (2015) The international Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33): multicenter validation and translation to Spanish. Health Qual Life Outcomes 13:62

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Sihvonen R, Järvelä T, Aho H, Järvinen TLN (2012) Validation of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) for patients with a degenerative meniscal tear: a meniscal pathology-specific quality-of-life index. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(10):165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stensrud S, Risberg MA, Roos EM (2014) Knee function and knee muscle strength in middle-aged patients with degenerative meniscal tears eligible for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Br J Sports Med 48:784–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stratford PW, Kennedy DM (2014) A comparison study of KOOS-PS and KOOS function and sport scores. Phys Ther 94(11):1614–1621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanner SM, Dainty KN, Marx RG, Kirkley A (2007) Knee-specific quality-of-life instruments: which ones measure symptoms and disabilities most important to patients? Am J Sports Med 35:1450–1458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. van der Wal RJP, Heemskerk BTJ, van Arkel ERA, Mokkink LB, Thomassen BJW (2016) Translation and validation of the Dutch Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool. J Knee Surg. doi:10.1055/s-0036-1584576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang D, Jones MH, Khair MM, Miniaci A (2010) Patient-reported outcome measures for the knee. J Knee Surg 23:137–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yim J-H, Seon J-K, Song E-K, Choi J-I, Kim M-C, Lee K-B, Seo H-Y (2013) A comparative study of meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment for degenerative horizontal tears of the medial meniscus. Am J Sports Med 41:1565–1570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zywiel MG, Mahomed A, Gandhi R, Perruccio AV, Mahomed NN (2013) Measuring expectations in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:3446–3456

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mrs. Baerbel Kappe for her assistance during the conduction of the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 45, 89081, Ulm, Germany

    M. Sgroi, M. Däxle, S. Kocak, H. Reichel & T. Kappe

Authors
  1. M. Sgroi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Däxle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Kocak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Reichel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Kappe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MS participated in the design of the study and in the translations procedure of the questionnaire, collected the data, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote the manuscript. MD participated in the design of the study and helped during the translations process. SK participated in the statistical analysis. HR participated in the study design and coordination and helped to design the manuscript. TK developed the study design, participated in its design and coordination, planned and contributed to the translations procedure of the questionnaire, and helped to draft the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Sgroi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Ulm (ID-number: 43/14). This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sgroi, M., Däxle, M., Kocak, S. et al. Translation, validation, and cross-cultural adaption of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) into German. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26, 2332–2337 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4535-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4535-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation