Psychometric Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hip Arthroscopic Surgery

• Published in: The American journal of sports medicine 2013-09, Vol.41 (9), p.2065-2073
• Main Authors: Kemp, Joanne L., Collins, Natalie J., Roos, Ewa M., Crossley, Kay M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Arthroscopy; Clinical outcomes; Follow-Up Studies; Hip joint; Hip Joint - surgery; Humans; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Studies; Surgery
• ISSN: 0363-5465; 1552-3365
• DOI: 10.1177/0363546513494173

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are considered the gold standard when evaluating outcomes in a surgical population. While the psychometric properties of some PROs have been tested, the properties of newer PROs in patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery remain somewhat unknown. Purpose: To evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability of 5 PROs (Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score [HAGOS], Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [HOOS], Hip Outcome Score [HOS], International Hip Outcome Tool [iHOT-33], and Modified Harris Hip Score [MHHS]) in a population undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery and also to provide a recommendation of the best PROs in patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Study participants were adults (mean age, 37 ± 11 years) who had undergone hip arthroscopic surgery 12 to 24 months previously and pain-free, healthy age-matched controls (mean age, 35 ± 11 years). Baseline characteristics including age, height, weight, waist girth, physical activity, and occupation were collected for both groups. The hip arthroscopic surgery group completed the 5 PRO questionnaires on 3 occasions, while the healthy control group completed the PRO questionnaires on 1 occasion. The reliability (test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient, or ICC] and minimal detectable change [MDC]), validity (construct validity, ability to detect a difference between groups, acceptability including floor and ceiling effects), responsiveness, and interpretability (minimal important change [MIC]) of each measure were calculated. Results: The test-retest reliability of PROs was excellent (ICC, 0.91-0.97), with an MDC of