ArticleBone & joint research2025
The structural validity of the Danish version of the Oxford Knee Score is not substantiated using Rasch analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) is a 12-item patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), developed for patients who are candidates for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A prerequisite for a PROM to be considered an adequate measurement instrument is a unidimensional structure as demonstrated by a modern test theory (MTT) model, meaning that each (sub)scale reflects one construct (e.g. pain). However, the structural validity of OKS has only been sparsely evaluated with MTT, and with ambiguous results. This study aimed to assess the structural validity of the Danish OKS. Since the OKS includes items addressing both pain and physical function, it was hypothesized that scores were more accurately reported as two separate subscales. Methods: OKS responses from a study of 1,059 patients treated with a TKA were obtained. Four random subsamples (each with 400 patients) - female and male, preoperative and three months postoperative - were assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis. CFA model fit was evaluated using the chi-squared statistic and indices of close fit. Rasch fit was evaluated with item fit statistics. Both a one-factor solution and two-factor solutions with scores based on two separate subscales were considered for each subsample. Results: OKS data did not fit the original unidimensional model of one total score. Reporting OKS data as the two subscales "pain" and "function" improved CFA fit, but model fit was still inadequate. Results were consistent across subsamples. Conclusion: The structural validity of the Danish OKS is inadequate for evaluating patients awaiting TKA or surgically treated with TKA. OKS data should therefore be interpreted with caution. Randomized treatment studies showing no difference in OKS scores may be reanalyzed based on the two domains to reduce the risk of a potential type-2 error.
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.