Translation and Validation of the Dutch Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool

Abstract

The aim of this study was to translate the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) into Dutch, to evaluate the content validity, construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness, and to determine the minimal important change (MIC) of the Dutch version. The WOMET was translated into Dutch according to a standardized forward-backward translation protocol. A total of 86 patients (51 males, 35 females, median age 52 years [interquartile range, 43–60 years]) with isolated meniscal pathology were included. The WOMET was completed three times; at baseline, around 2 weeks, and after 3 months from the baseline. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form, short-form 36, and an anchor question were also answered. There were good results for content validity (floor and ceiling effects [< 15%]), construct validity (79% of the predefined hypotheses were confirmed), internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.87, 0.79, and 0.86 for each subscale score), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.78 for total WOMET score), and responsiveness (79% of the predefined hypotheses were confirmed). The smallest detectable change and MIC for the Dutch WOMET are 20.5 and 14.7, respectively. The Dutch version of the WOMET is valid and reliable for assessing health-related quality of life in patients with meniscal pathology.

Keywords

meniscus - validity - reliability - responsiveness - Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool - WOMET

• References

• 1 Rodkey WG, Diplomate DV, Stone KR, Steadman JR. Replacement of the irreparably injured meniscus. Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review. New York, NY: Raven Press Ltd; 1993
• 2 Smillie IS. The current pattern of the pathology of meniscus tears. Proc R Soc Med 1968; 61 (1) 44-45
• 3 Poehling GG, Ruch DS, Chabon SJ. The landscape of meniscal injuries. Clin Sports Med 1990; 9 (3) 539-549
• 4 Cullen KA, Hall MJ, Golosinskiy A. Ambulatory surgery in the United States, 2006. Natl Health Stat Rep 2009; 11 (11) 1-25
• 5 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Operaties in het ziekenhuis; soort opname, leeftijd en geslacht, 1995–2010 (in Dutch). Available at: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80386NED&LA=NL . Accessed February 5, 2014
• 6 Meredith DS, Losina E, Mahomed NN, Wright J, Katz JN. Factors predicting functional and radiographic outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: a review of the literature. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (2) 211-223
• 7 World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1980
• 8 Kirkley A, Griffin S, Whelan D. The development and validation of a quality of life-measurement tool for patients with meniscal pathology: the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET). Clin J Sport Med 2007; 17 (5) 349-356
• 9 Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 64
• 10 Hefti F, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli HU. Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1993; 1 (3–4): 226-234
• 11 Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 1982; 10 (3) 150-154
• 12 Sihvonen R, Järvelä T, Aho H, Järvinen TL. Validation of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) for patients with a degenerative meniscal tear: a meniscal pathology-specific quality-of-life index. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (10) e65
• 13 Briggs KK, Kocher MS, Rodkey WG, Steadman JR. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee score and Tegner activity scale for patients with meniscal injury of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (4) 698-705
• 14 Crawford K, Briggs KK, Rodkey WG, Steadman JR. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the IKDC score for meniscus injuries of the knee. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (8) 839-844
• 15 Celik D, Demirel M, Kuş G, Erdil M, Özdinçler AR. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (3) 816-825
• 16 Outerbridge RE. The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1961; 43-B: 752-757
• 17 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25 (24) 3186-3191
• 18 Tanner SM, Dainty KN, Marx RG, Kirkley A. Knee-specific quality-of-life instruments: which ones measure symptoms and disabilities most important to patients?. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (9) 1450-1458
• 19 Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL , et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (7) 737-745
• 20 Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL , et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 2
• 21 Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR , et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 (1) 34-42
• 22 McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res 1995; 4 (4) 293-307
• 23 de Groot IB, Favejee MM, Reijman M, Verhaar JA, Terwee CB. The Dutch version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: a validation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008; 6: 16
• 24 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL , et al. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (5) 600-613
• 25 Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD , et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51 (11) 1055-1068
• 26 Haverkamp D, Sierevelt IN, Breugem SJ, Lohuis K, Blankevoort L, van Dijk CN. Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (10) 1680-1684
• 27 Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 5th ed. Boston, MA: Cencage Learning Inc.; 2002
• 28 Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003; 12 (4) 349-362
• 29 McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996; 1 (1) 30-46
• 30 De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB , et al. Measurement in Medicine. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2011
• 31 Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Becher JG, Bezemer PD, Verbeek AL. Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 2001; 10 (7) 571-578
• 32 de Vet HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ. Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17 (4) 479-487
• 33 Irrgang JJ, Marx RG. Clinical outcomes in sport and exercise physical therapies. In: Kolt GS, Synder-Mackler L, eds. Physical Therapies in Sports and Exercise. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Elsevier; 2007
• 34 Englund M, Guermazi A, Gale D , et al. Incidental meniscal findings on knee MRI in middle-aged and elderly persons. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 (11) 1108-1115
• 35 Akad K, Solmaz D, Sari I, Onen F, Akkoc N, Akar S. Performance of response scales of activity and functional measures of ankylosing spondylitis: numerical rating scale versus visual analog scale. Rheumatol Int 2013; 33 (10) 2617-2623
• 36 Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008