Development and Validation of a Novel Knee-Specific Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure

in Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year online subscription

USD  $76.00

1 year online subscription

USD  $101.00

Student 2 year online subscription

USD  $144.00

2 year online subscription

USD  $192.00

Context: Previous research suggests that several knee-specific patient-reported outcome measures have poor measurement properties. The patient-reported outcomes knee assessment tool (PROKAT) was created to improve assessment of knee-specific function. Examination of the measurement properties of this new measure is critical to determine its clinical value. Objective: Examine the measurement properties of the PROKAT. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Clinical athletic training setting. Patients or Other Participants: The pilot study included 32 student-athletes (mean age = 20.78 [1.01], males = 56.30%). The full study included 203 student-athletes (mean age = 21.46 [4.64], males = 54.70%) from 3 separate institutions. The participants were recruited for both the pilot and full study using face-to-face and electronic (eg, email and social media sites) communications. Intervention(s): Evaluation of the measurement properties of the PROKAT occurred using the Rasch partial-credit model. Main Outcome Measures: Infit and outfit statistics, item step difficulties, person ability parameters, category function, item and test information functions, and Cronbach alpha. An independent samples t test was used to evaluate the differences in injured and noninjured athletes’ scores. Results: The Rasch partial-credit model analysis of pilot test items and qualitative participant feedback were used to modify the initial PROKAT. Evaluation of the revised PROKAT (32 items) indicated 27 items had acceptable model–data fit. The injured athletes scored significantly worse than the noninjured athletes (t188 = 12.89; P < .01). The ceiling effects for the PROKAT were minimal (3.9%). Conclusions: A major advantage of this study was the use of the Rasch measurement and the targeted population. Compared with alternative knee-specific patient-reported outcome measures (eg, Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form), the PROKAT has low ceiling effects in athletic populations. In addition, evidence suggests the measure may be capable of distinguishing between injured and noninjured athletes.

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.

    Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Vol 323. Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 2001.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Valier ARS, Jennings AL, Parsons JT, Vela LI. Benefits of and barriers to using patient-rated outcome measures in athletic training. J Athl Train. 2014;49(5):674683. PubMed ID: 25098654 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    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):737745. PubMed ID: 20494804 doi:

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

    American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. 7th ed. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Williamson T, Sikka R, Tompkins M, Nelson BJ. Use of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score in a healthy United States population. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(2):440446. PubMed ID: 26657571 doi:

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

    Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care. 2004;42(suppl 1):I716. PubMed ID: 14707751.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Farnsworth II J, Evans TA, Binkley H, Kang M. Evaluation of knee-specific patient-reported outcome measures using Rasch analysis [published online ahead of print February 7, 2020]. J Sport Rehabil. 18. doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    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
  • 9.

    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
  • 10.

    Queen RM, Gross MT, Liu H-Y. Repeatability of lower extremity kinetics and kinematics for standardized and self-selected running speeds. Gait Posture. 2006;23(3):282287. PubMed ID: 15990310 doi:

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

    Kemozek TW, Zimmer KA. Reliability and running speed effects of in-shoe loading measurements during slow treadmill running. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(9):749752. doi:

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

    Paterno MV, Ford KR, Myer GD, Heyl R, Hewett TE. Limb asymmetries in landing and jumping 2 years following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17(4):258262. PubMed ID: 17620778 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Yamazaki J, Muneta T, Ju YJ, Sekiya I. Differences in kinematics of single leg squatting between anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients and healthy controls. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;18(1):56. PubMed ID: 19693487 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Fisher WP Jr. What scale-free measurement means to health outcomes research. Phys Med Rehabil State Art Rev. 1997;11(2):357373.

  • 15.

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

  • 16.

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

  • 17.

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

  • 18.

    Kincaid JP, Fishburne Jr RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command, Millington TN:  Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida. Research Branch; 1975.

    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Sahin A, Anil D. The effects of test length and sample size on item parameters in item response theory. Educ Sci Theory Pract. 2017;17(1):321335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Vol 26. Thousand Oaks, CASage Publications; 2016.

  • 21.

    Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99103. PubMed ID: 12584072 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Masters JR. The relationship between number of response categories and reliability of Likert-type questionnaires. J Educ Meas. 1974;11(1):4953. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Matell MS, Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: reliability and validity. Educ Psychol Meas. 1971;31(3):657674. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):17. doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Fries J, Rose M, Krishnan E. The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and Internet administration. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(8):17591764. PubMed ID: 21807798 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Burton C. Can the IKDC subjective patient outcome predict limb asymmetries in clinician reported outcomes? Free Communication Oral Presentations presented at National Athletic Trainers’ Association 68th Clinical Symposia & AT Expo; June 27, 2017. Houston, TX.

    • Export Citation
  • 27.

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Tagesson S, Öberg B, Good L, Kvist J. A comprehensive rehabilitation program with quadriceps strengthening in closed versus open kinetic chain exercise in patients with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency: a randomized clinical trial evaluating dynamic tibial translation and muscle function. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):298307. PubMed ID: 17940146 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 285 286 30
Full Text Views 1 1 0
PDF Downloads 1 1 0