3.8 Article

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Greek version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET)

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
Volume 24, Issue 5, Pages 304-310

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21679169.2021.1871778

Keywords

WOMET; reliability; validation; quality of life; meniscus pathology

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study culturally adapted and validated the WOMET questionnaire in Greek, showing good reliability and validity in measuring the health-related quality of life of patients with meniscal pathology.
Background The Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) is a questionnaire designed to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with meniscal pathology. The purpose of this study is to culturally adapt and validate the WOMET into Greek using the COSMIN checklist. Materials and Methods One-hundred three patients (40 females, 63 males; mean age: 42.9 +/- 18.5) with meniscal pathology were recruited in this study. The test-retest reliability of the WOMET was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) while the internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. The concurrent validity was assessed by evaluating the correlation among the WOMET and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) while construct validity was assessed with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Results The ICC for the overall WOMET score was 0.91 while the Cronbach's alpha was 0.96. WOMET was moderately to strongly correlated with the domains of the KOOS with the strongest correlation being between WOMET and Quality of Life domain (r = 0.81). EFA provided support for a two factor solution explaining the 66.2% of the total variability. Conclusions The Greek version of WOMET is considered a valid tool for measuring the HRQoL of Greek speaking patients with meniscal pathology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available