Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patientenorientierter Schulthess-Hüftscore (5 Items) zur Evaluation von Koxarthrose- und Hüftarthroplastikpatienten

Entwicklung und Validierung

Schulthess Hip Score (5 items) for assessing disability in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty

Development and validation

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Es soll ein kurzer, patientenorientierter Fragebogen für deutschsprachige Koxarthrosepatienten entwickelt und validiert werden. Er soll zur präoperativen Statuserhebung, sowie zum postoperativen Verlaufsmonitoring dienen.

Material und Methoden

Items wurden ausschließlich auf der Basis von Patientenangaben generiert. Der neue 5-Item-Score (Schulthess-Hüftscore, SHS) wurde in 105 konsekutiven Patienten (Alter 63±11 Jahre, 48 Frauen), welche aufgrund einer Koxarthrose eine totale Hüftarthroplastik (THA) erhielten, auf die folgenden Eigenschaften hin getestet: Auswertbarkeit, Reliabilität, interne Konsistenz, Validität und Responsivität.

Ergebnisse

Es konnten 97% der Fragebögen ausgewertet werden. Die Reliabilität des SHS war exzellent (ICC=0,90). Die Faktoranalyse belegte die Unidimensionalität des SHS. Cronbach’s α betrug 0,88. Die konvergierende Validität wurde durch moderate bis hohe Korrelationen mit dem WOMAC (r=0,78), Oxford Hip Score (r=0,78), SF-12 physische Summenskala (r=−0,57), UCLA-Aktivitätsskala (r=−0,48) und dem Tegner-Score (r=−0,53) belegt. Eine geringere Korrelation mit der psychischen Summenskala des SF-12 (r=−0,37) zeigte die divergierende Validität auf. Der SHS war sehr responsiv, 6 Monate nach THA betrug die „effect size“ (ES) 2,15 und die „standardized response mean“ (SRM) 1,74.

Schlussfolgerung

Mit dem SHS steht ein kurzer patientenorientierter Fragebogen zur Verfügung, der für deutschsprachige Koxarthrosepatienten entwickelt wurde und reliabel, valide und responsiv ist.

Abstract

Background

We developed and validated a five-item self-report questionnaire for assessing disability as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health conceptual model in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA).

Material and methods

The psychometric properties of the new score (Schulthess hip score, SHS) were examined in 105 consecutive patients (mean age 63 years; 48 women) undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Results

The completion rate (97%) and reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.90) of the SHS were excellent. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that all items that loaded on one factor only that accounted for 69.4% of the total variance. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88. Evidence of validity was provided by moderate to high correlations (r=-0.37–0.78) with the scores of traditionally used self-reported outcome measures. The SHS was very responsive, with an effect size of 2.15 and a standardized response mean of 1.74 for changes recorded 6 months after THA.

Conclusion

These results provide evidence to support use of the SHS for assessing disability in patients with hip OA.

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

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Baron G, Tubach F, Ravaud P et al (2007) Validation of a short form of the western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index function subscale in hip and knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 57:633–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellamy N (1995) Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol 43(Suppl):49–51

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH et al (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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S et al (2005) ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med 37:212–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:185–190

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F et al (2004) Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:963–974

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF (1995) Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 7:286–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK et al (1998) Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 health survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1171–1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Garbuz DS, Xu M, Sayre EC (2006) Patients‘ outcome after total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between the western Ontario and McMaster universities index and the oxford 12-item hip score. J Arthroplasty 21:998–1004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hopkins WG (2000) Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30:1–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Streiner DL, King DR (1997) Clinical impact versus factor analysis for quality of life questionnaire construction. J Clin Epidemiol 50:233–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Keenan AM, McKenna SP, Doward LC et al (2008) Development and validation of a needs-based quality of life instrument for osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 59:841–848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Keller RB (1993) Outcomes research in orthopaedics. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1:122–129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Marx RG, Bombardier C, Hogg-Johnson S, Wright JG (1999) How should importance and severity ratings be combined for item reduction in the development of health status instruments? J Clin Epidemiol 52:193–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marx RG, Jones EC, Atwan NC et al (2005) Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1999–2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1:30–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M (2009) Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:958–965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Naal FD, Sieverding M, Impellizzeri FM et al (2009) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted german oxford hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:952–957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, Roos EM (2003) Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)-validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 4:10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Norman GR, Wyrwich KW, Patrick DL (2007) The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Qual Life Res 16:815–822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ostendorf M, Stel HF van, Buskens E et al (2004) Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:801–808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rothenfluh DA, Reedwisch D, Müller U et al (2008) Construct validity of a 12-item WOMAC for assessment of femoro-acetabular impingement and osteoarthritis of the hip. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 16:1032–1038

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Scientific Advisor Committee, Medical Outcomes Trust (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stevens J (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 4th edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 385–469

  28. Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S et al (1996) Evaluation of a german version of WOMAC (western Ontario and McMaster universities) arthrosis index. Z Rheumatol 55:40–49

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Terwee CB, Bot SD, Boer MR de et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Veenhof C, Bijlsma JW, Ende CH van den et al (2006) Psychometric evaluation of osteoarthritis questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Arthritis Rheum 55:480–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS et al (1995) Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the medical outcomes study. Med Care 33:264–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. World Health Organization (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. WHO, Geneva

  35. Wright JG, Young NL (1997) A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 50:239–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 13:890–895

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor weist auf folgende Beziehungen hin: Finanzielle Unterstützung: Synos Foundation (CH) und Schulthess Klinik Wissenschaftsfonds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gelenkzentrum Untere Extremitäten, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, CH-8008, Zürich, Schweiz

    F.D. Naal, M. Wasmer & M. Leunig

  2. Abteilung für Forschung und Entwicklung, Schulthess Klinik, Zürich, Schweiz

    F.M. Impellizzeri & A.F. Mannion

  3. Universität Bern, Bern, Schweiz

    M. Leunig

Authors
  1. F.D. Naal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F.M. Impellizzeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Wasmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A.F. Mannion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Leunig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F.D. Naal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Naal, F., Impellizzeri, F., Wasmer, M. et al. Patientenorientierter Schulthess-Hüftscore (5 Items) zur Evaluation von Koxarthrose- und Hüftarthroplastikpatienten. Orthopäde 39, 834–841 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-010-1611-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-010-1611-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation