ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Assessing the Structural Validity of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Scale.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) scale is used to assess patient perspectives on knee health. However, the structural validity of the KOOS has not been sufficiently tested; therefore, our objective was to assess the KOOS in a large, multi-site database of patient responses who were receiving care for knee pathology.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using the Surgical Outcome System (SOS) database. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the proposed five-factor KOOS using a priori cut-off values. Because model fit indices were not met, a subsequent exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify a parsimonious model. The resulting four-factor structure (i.e., KOOS SF-12) was then assessed using CFA and subjected to multigroup invariance testing.
resultsThe original KOOS model did not meet rigorous CFA fit recommendations. The KOOS SF-12 did meet model fit recommendations and passed all invariance testing between intervention procedure, sex, and age groups.
conclusionThe KOOS failed to meet model fit recommendations. The KOOS SF-12 met model fit recommendations, maintained a multi-factorial structure, and was invariant across all tested groups. The KOOS did not demonstrate sound structural validity. A refined KOOS SF-12 model that met recommended model fit indices and invariance testing criteria was identified. Our findings provide initial support for a multidimensional KOOS structure (i.e., KOOS SF-12) that is a more psychometrically sound instrument for measuring patient-reported knee health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.