Top

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Published in:

01-08-2015 | knee

Turkish version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life questionnaire

Authors: Gizem Irem Kinikli, Derya Celik, Inci Yuksel, Ozgur Ahmet Atay

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 8/2015

Abstract

Purpose

To test the measurement properties of Turkish version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life (ACL-QOL) questionnaire.

Methods

One hundred and nineteen patients with ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) completed internal consistency, agreement, construct validity, floor and ceiling effect analyses. Eighty out of 119 patients with ACL-R completed Turkish version of the ACL-QOL questionnaire twice for the test–retest reliability. A subgroup of thirty-nine patients undergoing physiotherapy were also asked to answer the ACL-QOL questionnaire, the Lysholm Knee Scale (LKS), Knee Outcome Survey—Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS–ADLS) and the short form 36 (SF-36) at pre-operative, 16th week and 2 years post-operatively to assess responsiveness.

Results

The questionnaire had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.95). The paired t test showed no significant difference between the test–retest means. The intraclass correlation was excellent for reliability and agreement in five domains and overall score (ICC 0.95, 0.95, 0.97, 0.95, 0.96 and 0.95; p < 0.001). The standard error of measurement and the minimum detectable change (MDC₉₅) were found to be 3.1 points and 8.7 points, respectively. The questionnaire showed a fair correlation (r = 0.23) with LKS and a poor correlation (r = 0.14) with KOS-ADLS; good and very good construct validity (r = 0.51, r = 0.62) with SF-36 physical component score and mental component score, respectively. No ceiling and floor effects were observed except the subdomain of ‘work-related concerns’ (22.9 %). A dramatic effect size was demonstrated at the 16th week (2.1) and 2 years (1.1) of follow-up.

Conclusion

Turkish version of the ACL-QOL questionnaire is a reproducible and responsive instrument that can be used in clinical studies.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic study, Level I.

Available only for authorised users

Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA (2011) Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med 45(7):596–606PubMedCrossRef

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24):3186–3191PubMedCrossRef

Celik D, Coşkunsu D, Kılıçoğlu Ö (2013) Translation and cultural adaptation of the Turkish Lysholm Knee Scale: ease of use, validity, and reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(8):2602–2610PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Cheung KM, Senkoylu A, Alanay A, Genc Y, Lau S, Luk KD (2007) Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Chinese version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine 32(10):1141–1145PubMedCrossRef

de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM (2007) Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16(1):131–142PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Evcik D, Ay S, Ege A, Turel A, Kavuncu V (2009) Adaptation and validation of Turkish version of the knee outcome survey-activities for daily living scale. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(8):2077–2082PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Feller JA, Webster KE (2003) A randomized comparison of patellar tendon and hamstring tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 31(4):564–573PubMed

Horn KK, Jennings S, Richardson G, van Vliet D, Hefford C, Abbott JH (2012) The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 42(1):30–42PubMedCrossRef

Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53(5):459–468PubMedCrossRef

10.

Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelborne KD (2001) Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 29(5):600–613PubMed

11.

Irrgang JJ, Snyder-Mackler L, Wainner RS, Fu FH, Harner CD (1998) Development of a patient-reported measure of function of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80(8):1132–1145PubMed

12.

Kane R (2006) Understanding health care outcomes research. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Canada

13.

Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Robarts S, Gollish JD (2011) Using outcome measure results to facilitate clinical decisions the first year after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 41(4):232–240PubMedCrossRef

14.

Kocyigit H, Aydemir O, Fisek G, Olmez N, Memis A (1999) Reliability and validity of Turkish version of Short form 36: a study of patients with rheumatoid disorder. (in Turkish). J Drug Ther 12:102–106

15.

Kolt GS (2007) Physical therapies in sport and exercise. Elsevier Health Sciences, Philadelphia

16.

Kvist J, Ek A, Sporrstedt K, Good L (2005) Fear of re-injury: a hindrance for returning to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13(5):393–397PubMedCrossRef

17.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. J Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRef

18.

Langford JL, Webster KE, Feller JA (2009) A prospective longitudinal study to assess psychological changes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Br J Sports Med 43(5):377–378PubMedCrossRef

19.

Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10(3):150–154PubMedCrossRef

20.

Marx RG, Jones EC, Angel M, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF (2003) Beliefs and attitudes of members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons regarding the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Arthroscopy 19(7):762–770PubMedCrossRef

21.

McHorney CA, JrJE Ware, Raczek AE (1993) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31(3):247–263PubMedCrossRef

22.

Mohtadi N (1998) Development and validation of the quality of life outcome measure (questionnaire) for chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. Am J Sports Med 26(3):350–359PubMed

23.

Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(2):88–96PubMedCrossRef

24.

Paker N, Buğdaycı D, Sabırlı F, Özel S, Ersoy S (2007) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score: reliability and validation of the Turkish version. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci 27(3):350–356

25.

Stratford PW (1989) Confidence limits for your ICC. Phys Ther 69(3):237–238PubMed

26.

Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:42–49

27.

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42PubMedCrossRef

28.

Tripp DA, Stanish W, Ebel-Lam A, Brewer BW, Birchard J (2007) Fear of reinjury, negative affect, and catastrophizing predicting return to sport in recreational athletes with anterior cruciate ligament injuries at 1 year postsurgery. Rehabil Psychol 52(1):74CrossRef

29.

Tüzün E, Eker L, Aytar A, Daşkapan A, Bayramoğlu M (2005) Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthr Cartilage 13(1):28–33CrossRef

30.

Ware JE (1991) Conceptualizing and measuring generic health outcomes. Cancer J Clin 67(S3):774–779

31.

Webster KE, Feller JA, Lambros C (2008) Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Phys Ther Sport 9(1):9–15PubMedCrossRef

Title: Turkish version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life questionnaire
Authors: Gizem Irem Kinikli
Derya Celik
Inci Yuksel
Ozgur Ahmet Atay
Publication date: 01-08-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3404-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Turkish version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life questionnaire

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

Outcome of subtalar instability reconstruction using the semitendinosus allograft tendon and biotenodesis screws

Anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament insertion sites: comparison of plain radiography and three-dimensional computed tomographic imaging to anatomic dissection

Is the native ACL insertion site “completely restored” using an individualized approach to single-bundle ACL-R?

Implantation of a collagen matrix for an AMIC repair during dry arthroscopy

Measurements of tibial rotation during a simulated pivot shift manoeuvre using a gyroscopic sensor

The Turkish version of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity