Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 2561–2568 | Cite as

Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

  • Kristina HarrisEmail author
  • Jill Dawson
  • Helen Doll
  • Richard E. Field
  • David W. Murray
  • Raymond Fitzpatrick
  • Crispin Jenkinson
  • Andrew J. Price
  • David J. Beard
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper was to examine if pain and functioning can be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in a meaningful way. This was done by (1) conducting exploratory factor analysis to explore the factorial structure of the OKS and (2) conducting confirmatory factor analysis to examine whether a two-factor solution is superior to a one-factor solution.

Methods

Secondary data analysis of four independent datasets containing OKS scores on 161,973 patients was performed. Four independent datasets contained data on: (1) 156, 788 patients from the NHS HES/PROMS dataset, (2) 2,405 consecutive patients from the South West London Elective Operating Centre, (3) 2,353 patients enrolled in the Knee Arthroplasty Trial and (4) 427 consecutive patients listed for knee replacement surgery at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford.

Results

Factor extraction methods suggested that, depending on the method employed, both one- and two-factor solutions are meaningful. Overall and in each data set some cross-loading occurred and item loadings were consistent across two factors. On confirmatory factor analysis, both one- and two-factor models had acceptable fit indices. This allowed the creation of the ‘OKS pain component’ and the ‘OKS functional component’ subscales.

Conclusions

Factor analysis confirmed the original conceptual basis of the OKS but offered an option to perform additional analyses using pain and functional subscales. Further research should focus on providing further evidence on construct validity and responsiveness of the newly derived subscales.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcomes Osteoarthritis Total joint replacement Outcomes assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

A copy of the OKS questionnaire and permission to use this measure can be acquired from Isis Innovation Ltd, the technology transfer company of the University of Oxford via website: http://www.isis-innovation.com/outcomes/index.html or email: healthoutcomes@isis.ox.ac.uk. Authors at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences thank the NIHR Biomedical Research Unit for its support. The KAT dataset was reused with the permission of the KAT Project Management Group.

Supplementary material

11136_2013_393_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (February, 2012). Facts and figures. Statistics on hospital-based care in the United States, 2009. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/factsandfigures/2009/exhibit3_1.jsp. Accessed 11 June 2012.
  2. 2.
    National Joint Registry for England and Wales (2011). 8th annual report. Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Murray, D., & Carr, A. (1998). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 80(1), 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Devlin, N. J., & Appleby, J. (2010). Getting the most out of PROMs. London: King’s Fund, Office of Health Economics.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gooberman-Hill, R., Woolhead, G., MacKichan, F., Ayis, S., Williams, S., & Dieppe, P. (2007). Assessing chronic joint pain: Lessons from a focus group study. Arthritis Care & Research, 57(4), 666–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heuts, P. H. T. G., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., Roelofs, J., de Bie, R. A., Aretz, K., van Weel, C., et al. (2004). Pain-related fear and daily functioning in patients with osteoarthritis. Pain, 110(1–2), 228–235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, M., Churchman, D., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Claysonm, D. (2010). User manual for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Isis Innovation Limited.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conaghan, P. G., Emerton, M., & Tennant, A. (2007). Internal construct validity of the Oxford Knee Scale: Evidence from Rasch measurement. Arthritis Care & Research, 57(8), 1363–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baker, P., Van der Meulen, J., Lewsey, J., & Gregg, P. (2007). The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement: Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 89(7), 893.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harcourt, W., White, S., & Jones, P. (2001). Specificity of the Oxford knee status questionnaire. The effect of disease of the hip or lumbar spine on patients’ perception of knee disability. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 83(3), 345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scott, C., Howie, C., MacDonald, D., & Biant, L. (2010). Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-British Volume, 92(9), 1253.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The Health and Social Care Information Centre Annual publication data quality notes library. Available at: http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=1189. Accessed 26 March 2012.
  15. 15.
    Murray, D., Fitzpatrick, R., Rogers, K., Pandit, H., Beard, D., Carr, A., et al. (2007). The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-British Volume, 89(8), 1010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Olsson, U. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 44(4), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Norman, G. R., & Streiner, D. L. (2008). Biostatistics: The bare essentials. PMPH USA Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and psychological measurement, 20, 141–151.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 1–11.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    David, L. S. (1998). Factors affecting reliability of interpretations of scree plots. Psychological Reports, 83(2), 687–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, 32(3), 396–402.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In: Problems and solutions in human assessment 2000 (pp. 41–71). USA: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maruyama, G. (1998). Basics of structural equation modelling. California: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models, 154, 136–162.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E. (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach. USA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boersma, K., & Linton, S. J. (2005). How does persistent pain develop? An analysis of the relationship between psychological variables, pain and function across stages of chronicity. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(11), 1495–1507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dekker, J., Van Dijk, G. M., & Veenhof, C. (2009). Risk factors for functional decline in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 21(5), 520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modelling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(1), 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristina Harris
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jill Dawson
    • 2
  • Helen Doll
    • 3
  • Richard E. Field
    • 4
  • David W. Murray
    • 1
  • Raymond Fitzpatrick
    • 2
  • Crispin Jenkinson
    • 2
  • Andrew J. Price
    • 1
  • David J. Beard
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.Norwich Medical SchoolUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  4. 4.South West London Elective Orthopaedic CentreSurreyUK

Personalised recommendations