SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni / 2020 / Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 4

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Turkish Version of the International Hip Outcome Tool – 12

Halis Atıl ATİLLA
Mutlu AKDOĞAN
Pages
483–489
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 overall Interclass coefficient (ICC)between test and retest was 0.927 (p<0.001).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The present study aims to conduct a translation and transcultural adaptation of the International Hip Outcome Tool –12 (IHOT-12) into Turkish and evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the Turkish version of IHOT-12 (IHOT-12-TR) for validityand reliability in Turkish patients with hip joint disorders.Methods: Following the translation and transcultural adaptation procedures, 109 patients completed the IHOT-12-TR and WesternOntario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The retest was completed by 40 patients approximatelyone week after the initial assessments.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall Interclass coefficient (ICC)between test and retest was 0.927 (p<0.001).
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: The present study aims to conduct a translation and transcultural adaptation of the International Hip Outcome Tool –12 (IHOT-12) into Turkish and evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the Turkish version of IHOT-12 (IHOT-12-TR) for validityand reliability in Turkish patients with hip joint disorders.Methods: Following the translation and transcultural adaptation procedures, 109 patients completed the IHOT-12-TR and WesternOntario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale. The retest was completed by 40 patients approximatelyone week after the initial assessments. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were tested.Results: Cronbach's alpha of 0.927 revealed the internal consistency to be highly satisfactory. The overall Interclass coefficient (ICC)between test and retest was 0.927 (p<0.001). The correlation between IHOT-12-TR and WOMAC scores was strong and statisticallysignificant (r=0.815, p<0.001). The explanatory factor analyses revealed that IHOT-12-TR had a single factor structure, explaining61.9% of the total variance. There was no floor or ceiling effect on the items and overall scale scores.Conclusion: The results of the analyses in this study demonstrated that the Turkish version of the IHOT- 12 scale, the IHOT-12-TR, isa valid and reliable tool to evaluate the functionality of patients with hip pathologies

🔖

Cite This Article

ATİLLA, H. A., AKDOĞAN, M. (2020). Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Turkish Version of the International Hip Outcome Tool – 12. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 4, 483–489. https://ajindex.com/articles/363668

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Nilsdotter A, Bremander A. Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63 Suppl 11:S200–7
  2. Mohtadi NG, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME, Chan D, Safran MR, Parsons N, et al; Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. The Development and validation of a self-administered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic hip disease: the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Arthroscopy 2012;28:595–605; quiz 606–10.e1
  3. Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, Lee JA, McCarthy JC. The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;75–83
  4. Klässbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol 2003;32:46–51
  5. Byrd JW, Jones KS. Hip arthroscopy in the presence of dysplasia. Arthroscopy 2003;19:1055–60
  6. Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy 2006;22:1304–11
  7. Thorborg K, Hölmich P, Christensen R, Petersen J, Roos EM. The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br J Sports Med 2011;45:478–91
  8. Polat G, Çelik D, Çil H, Erdil M, Aşık M. Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish version of Hip Outcome Score. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2017;51:319–24
  9. Ramisetty N, Kwon Y, Mohtadi N. Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery-a systematic review of the literature. J Hip Preserv Surg 2015;2:15–27
  10. Griffin DR, Parsons N, Mohtadi NG, Safran MR; Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice. Arthroscopy 2012;28:611–6; quiz 616–8
  11. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3186–91
  12. Tuğay BU, Tuğay N, Güney H, Hazar Z, Yüksel İ, Atilla B. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of Oxford hip score. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015;135:879–89
  13. Tüzün EH