SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 1975 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3

Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish version of Hip Outcome Score

GÖKHAN POLAT
DERYA ÇELİK
Hilal ÇİL
Mehmet ERDİL
MEHMET AŞIK
Pages
319–324
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The responsiveness of the HOS-Tr-ADL and HOS-Tr-S subscales were 3.4 to 1.4 for patientstreated with surgically and 0.9 to 1.1 for patients treated with non-surgically.Conclusion: The HOS-Tr is understandable, reliably, valid, and responsive for Turkish-speaking patientswith hip pathology.Level of Evidence: Level 3 Diagnostic Study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: Hip Outcome Score (HOS), originally developed in English, assesses the severity of hippathology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The process included 2 forward translations, followed by the synthesis of thesetranslations, and 2 backward translations, followed by an analysis of the translations and creation of theŞnal version.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The responsiveness of the HOS-Tr-ADL and HOS-Tr-S subscales were 3.4 to 1.4 for patientstreated with surgically and 0.9 to 1.1 for patients treated with non-surgically.Conclusion: The HOS-Tr is understandable, reliably, valid, and responsive for Turkish-speaking patientswith hip pathology.Level of Evidence: Level 3 Diagnostic Study.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: Hip Outcome Score (HOS), originally developed in English, assesses the severity of hippathology. To date, no Turkish version of the questionnaire exists.Purpose: The aim of our study was to translate the HOS into Turkish and verify its psychometricproperties.Methods: The translation and cultural adaptation were performed according to international recommendations inŞve stages: The HOS was translated into Turkish, consistent with published methodological guidelines. The process included 2 forward translations, followed by the synthesis of thesetranslations, and 2 backward translations, followed by an analysis of the translations and creation of theŞnal version. The measurement properties of the Turkish HOS (internal consistency, construct validity,floor and ceiling effects and responsiveness) were tested in 130 patients.Results: A committee consisting of the four translators agreed with theŞnal version of the HOS (HOS-Tr).The internal consistency and the test-retest reliability of the HOS-Tr-ADL and HOS-Tr-S subscales wereexcellent. Correlations between the HOS-Tr and convergent validity of the with HHS and NAHS were fairto good. The responsiveness of the HOS-Tr-ADL and HOS-Tr-S subscales were 3.4 to 1.4 for patientstreated with surgically and 0.9 to 1.1 for patients treated with non-surgically.Conclusion: The HOS-Tr is understandable, reliably, valid, and responsive for Turkish-speaking patientswith hip pathology.Level of Evidence: Level 3 Diagnostic Study.

🔖

Cite This Article

POLAT, G., ÇELİK, D., ÇİL, H., ERDİL, M., AŞIK, M. (1975). Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish version of Hip Outcome Score. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3, 319–324. https://ajindex.com/articles/178198

References (13)

  1. Bellamy N. The WOMAC knee and hip osteoarthritis indices: development,validation, globalization and influence on the development of the AUSCANhand osteoarthritis indices. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5 Suppl 39):S148eS153
  2. Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, Lee JA, McCarthy JC. The nonarthritichip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003Jan;406(1):75e83
  3. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Frost S, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray D. Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Nov;83(8): 1125e1129
  4. Klassbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome €score. An extension of the western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritisindex. Scand J Rheumatol. 2003;32(1):46e51
  5. Mohtadi NG, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME, et al. Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. The Development and validation of a selfadministered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic hip disease: the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):595e605
  6. Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcomescore. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1304e1311
  7. Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score in hiparthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(8):822e826
  8. Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(6):676e682
  9. Celik D, Can C, Aslan Y, Ceylan HH, Bilsel K, Ozdincler AR. Translation, crossculturaladaptation, and validation of the Turkish version of the Harris HipScore. Hip Int. 2014;24(5):473e479
  10. Tüzün EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Das¸ kapan A, Bayramoglu M. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2005 Jan;13(1):28e33
  11. Tugay BU, Tu gay N, Güney H, Hazar Z, Yüksel _ I, Atilla B. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of Oxford hip score. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):879e889
  12. Yilmaz O, Gul ED, Bodur H. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of theTurkish version of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score-physicalfunction short-form (HOOS-PS). Rheumatol Int. 2014 Jan;34(1):43e49
  13. Rolfson O, Eresian Chenok K, Bohm E, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures working group of the international society of arth