ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Psychometric evaluation and adaptability of the simplified Chinese version of HOOS-12 in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConsidering the response burden of the full version of the HOOS scale, researchers developed a more concise HOOS-12 scale. Although the HOOS-12 has been verified to have good reliability, validity and responsiveness in most Western-country studies, it still needs further evaluation in other non-English populations. Therefore, our aim is to assess the content validity, internal consistency, structural validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, floor effect and ceiling effect of the Chinese version of HOOS-12 in the patient population whose native language is Chinese. The goal is to provide a high-quality evaluation tool for the global Chinese-using hip joint patient population, promote cross-cultural and cross-regional hip joint research, and ensure the comparability of the data.
methodPatients with chronic hip diseases scheduled for total hip arthroplasty were included in the study. Content validity was evaluated using expert review to assess item relevance. CFA was employed to validate the construct validity of the CHOO-12. Convergent and discriminant validity of the CHOOS-12 were assessed using the SF-36, OHS, and WOMAC scales as reference instruments. The first HOOS-12 scores were used to evaluate content validity, internal consistency, and structural validity. The second set of scores was utilized to assess test-retest reliability and ceiling/floor effects. The third set of scores was applied to evaluate responsiveness.
resultThe CHOOS-12 demonstrated good content validity. No ceiling or floor effects were observed for the CHOOS-12 total scale or its pain, function, and quality of life subscales. The internal consistency among items was high for both the overall CHOOS-12 and all its subscales. CFA indicated satisfactory performance for the pain dimension, though the unidimensionality of the function and quality of life dimensions was challenged. The CHOOS-12 scale exhibited good convergent and discriminant validity. With overall ES and SRM values of 2.08 and 2.42 respectively, the CHOOS-12 also demonstrated good responsiveness.
conclusionCHOOS-12 demonstrated good reliability and validity in this study. In terms of construct validity, the pain subscale performed well, although the unidimensionality of the PF and QOL subscales was challenged, the core items still had measurement potential. Future research needs to conduct further validation in larger and more diverse samples.
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.