4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 29, 期 5, 页码 600-613

出版社

AMER ORTHOPAEDIC SOC SPORT MED
DOI: 10.1177/03635465010290051301

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A committee of international knee experts created the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form, which is a knee-specific, rather than a disease-specific, measure of symptoms, function, and Sports activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the new International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. To provide evidence for reliability and validity, we administered the final version of the form, along with the Short Form-36, to 533 patients with a variety of knee problems. Analyses were performed to determine reliability, validity, and differential item function related to age, sex, and diagnosis. Factor analysis revealed a single dominant component, making it reasonable to combine all questions into a single score. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were 0.92 and 0.95, respectively. Based on test-retest reliability, the value for a true change in the score was 9.0 points. The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form score was related to concurrent measures of physical function (r = 0.47 to 0.66) but not to emotional function (r = 0.16 to 0.26). Analysis of differential item function indicated that the questions functioned similarly for men versus women, young versus old, and for those with different diagnoses. In conclusion, the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form is a reliable and valid knee-specific measure of symptoms, function, and sports activity that is appropriate for patients with a wide variety of knee problems. Use of this instrument will permit comparisons of outcome across groups with different knee problems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据