Evaluation of Knee-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Using Rasch Analysis

in Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year subscription

USD  $74.00

1 year subscription

USD  $99.00

Student 2 year subscription

USD  $141.00

2 year subscription

USD  $185.00

Context: Documentation of patient outcomes following injury is critical to ensure that patients are receiving the best care. Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to assess knee-related function following injury; however, there is limited data investigating the measurement properties of these instruments using Rasch model analyses. Objective: To evaluate the measurement properties of several PROMs through application of the Rasch measurement model. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Clinical setting. Patients or Other Participants: A convenience sample of 160 adults (mean age = 28.08 [10.95] y; male = 38.10%) were recruited for this study. Data collected were combined with existing pilot data from an earlier study containing de-identified Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) data from 79 adults with knee injuries resulting in a total sample size of 239 adults. Intervention(s): Psychometric evaluation of the KOOS, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form, and the Marx Activity Rating Scale using the Rasch partial credit model. Main Outcome Measures: Infit and outfit statistics, item step difficulties, person ability parameters, category function, and item and test information functions. Results: Large ceiling effects were present in the KOOS and International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form. Of the 65 items examined in this study, 35 items showed poor measurement properties. Item step difficulty for the remaining 30 items ranged from −5.45 (least difficult) to 0.57 logits (most difficult). The 5-category response options did not function well. Measurement precision decreased significantly as ability score increased beyond 0.30 logits. Conclusions: Despite their use in clinical practice, several items showed poor measurement properties. Future studies are needed to develop and evaluate novel items that are suitable for measuring knee-related function in high-functioning populations to ensure continuity of PROMs as individuals recover from injuries.

Farnsworth is with the Department of Health and Human Performance, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA. Evans is with the Department of Health, Recreation and Community Services, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA. Binkley is with the Department of Health and Human Performance, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA. Kang is with the Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.

Farnsworth (farnsworth@txstate.edu) is corresponding author.
  • 1.

    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. 2016. https://www.aaos.org/quality/research-resources/patient-reported-outcome-measures/lower-extremity-performance-measures/. Accessed April 20, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Wang D, Jones MH, Khair MM, Miniaci A. Patient-reported outcome measures for the knee. J Knee Surg. 2010;23(3):137151. PubMed ID: 21329255 doi:

  • 3.

    Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(suppl 11):S208S228. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Dompier TP, Marshall SW, Kerr ZY, Hayden R. The National Athletic Treatment, Injury and Outcomes Network (NATION): methods of the surveillance program, 2011–2012 through 2013–2014. J Athl Train. 2015;50(8):862869. PubMed ID: 26067620 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Steultjens MPM, Dekker J. Performance-based methods for measuring the physical function of patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of measurement properties. Rheumatology. 2006;45(7):890902. PubMed ID: 16461441 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47(2):149174. doi:

  • 7.

    US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Ragan BG, Kang M, Snook EM, Herrmann SD. Validation of Nagi’s disablement process model in orthopedic knee patients. J Athl Train. 2008;43(3):S-77.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28(2):8896. PubMed ID: 9699158 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    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):600613. PubMed ID: 11573919 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Marx RG, Jones EC, Allen AA, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(10):14591469. PubMed ID: 11679594 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Xcalibre [computer program]. Version 4.2. Saint Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation; 2014.

  • 13.

    Wright BD, Linacre JM, Gustafson J, Martin-Lof P. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;8(3):370.

  • 14.

    Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas. 2002;3(1):85106. PubMed ID: 11997586

  • 15.

    World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Coute RA, Ehrenfeld JM, Gupta DK, Terekhov MA, Wanderer JP. Electronically self-assessed functional capacity and exercise testing: a comparison of the duke activity status index and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system tools. Am Heart J. 2017;188:8286. PubMed ID: 28577684 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Collins NJ, Prinsen CAC, Christensen R, Bartels EM, Terwee CB, Roos EM. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24(8):13171329. PubMed ID: 27012756 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Deroche T, Woodman T, Stephan Y, Brewer BW, Le Scanff C. Athletes’ inclination to play through pain: a coping perspective. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2011;24(5):579587. PubMed ID: 21328106 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Young K, White P, McTeer W. Body talk: male athletes reflect on sport, injury, and pain. Sociol Sport J. 1994;11(2):175194. doi:

  • 20.

    van der List JP, DiFelice GS. Range of motion and complications following primary repair versus reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee. 2017;24(4):798807. PubMed ID: 28549818 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Sahin A, Anil D. The effects of test length and sample size on item parameters in item response theory. Educ Sci. 2017;17(17):321335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 290 290 8
Full Text Views 16 16 1
PDF Downloads 7 7 0