4.6 Article

Performance measures were necessary to obtain a complete picture of osteoarthritic patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 160-167

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.012

Keywords

responsiveness; arthroplasty; physical function; health status; validity; outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Self-report questionnaires and performance measures represent two methods for assessing physical function. A recurring theme is that self-report measures are superior to performance measures. This study investigated the association between three performance test outcomes of four activities (pain, exertion, and time or distance; for self-paced walk, stair test, timed up-and-go, 6-minute walk) with self-reports of physical function (WOMAC Physical Function subscale and LEFS) and the association between the change scores of the performance tests and those of the self-report measures. Study Design and Setting: Performance and self-report measures were administered three times (presurgery and at similar to 1 week and similar to 8 weeks post arthroplasty) to 85 patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty. Components of the performance tests were pooled within each domain across the four measures. Multiple regression analyses were applied. Independent variables were performance tests components; dependent variables were self-report measures. Standardized regression coefficients described the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations. Results: Pain was the principal determinant of WOMAC Physical Function subscale scores. Pain, exertion, and time or distance were strongly associated with the LEFS at the first, second, and third assessments, respectively. Change in pain was most strongly associated with change in self-reported physical function. Conclusion: Our findings caution against the isolated use of self-report assessments of physical function. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available