Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of Oxford hip score

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to translate the Oxford hip score (OHS) into Turkish and to evaluate the psychometric properties by testing the internal consistency, reproducibility, construct validity, and responsiveness in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA).

Patients and methods

Oxford hip score was translated and culturally adapted according to the guidelines in the literature. Seventy patients (mean age 61.45 ± 9.29 years) with hip osteoarthritis participated in the study. Patients completed the Turkish Oxford hip score (OHS-TR), the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC). Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach’s α coefficient. Patients completed OHS-TR questionnaire twice in 7 days for determining the reproducibility. Correlation between the total results of both tests was determined by the Pearson correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Validity was assessed by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient between the OHS-TR and WOMAC and SF-36 scores. Floor and ceiling effects were analyzed.

Results

The internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α 0.93). The construct validity showed a significant correlation between the OHS-TR and WOMAC and related SF-36 domains (p < 0.001). The ICC’s ranged between 0.80 and 0.99. There was no floor or ceiling effect in total OHS-TR score.

Conclusions

The OHS-TR questionnaire is valid, reliable, and responsive for the Turkish-speaking patients with hip OA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Michael JW, Schluter-Brust KU, Eysel P (2010) The epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107(9):152–162. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2010.0152

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oliveria SA, Felson DT, Reed JI, Cirillo PA, Walker AM (1995) Incidence of symptomatic hand, hip, and knee osteoarthritis among patients in a health maintenance organization. Arthritis Rheum 38(8):1134–1141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Felson DT, Zhang Y (1998) An update on the epidemiology of knee and hip osteoarthritis with a view to prevention. Arthritis Rheum 41(8):1343–1355. doi:10.1002/1529-0131(199808)41:8<1343:AID-ART3>3.0.CO;2-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dunlop DD, Manheim LM, Song J, Chang RW (2001) Arthritis prevalence and activity limitations in older adults. Arthritis Rheum 44(1):212–221. doi:10.1002/1529-0131(200101)44:1<212:AID-ANR28>3.0.CO;2-Q

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Woolf AD, Pfleger B (2003) Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 81(9):646–656

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78B(2):185–190

    Google Scholar 

  7. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89B(8):1010–1014. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.89b8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bijlsma JW, Berenbaum F, Lafeber FP (2011) Osteoarthritis: an update with relevance for clinical practice. Lancet 377(9783):2115–2126. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60243-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dawson J, Linsell L, Zondervan K, Rose P, Randall T, Carr A, Fitzpatrick R (2004) Epidemiology of hip and knee pain and its impact on overall health status in older adults. Rheumatology 43(4):497–504. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh086

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Juhakoski R (2013) Hip osteoarthritis; risk factors and effects of exercise therapy, vol 166. University of Eastern Finland, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  11. Juhakoski R, Heliovaara M, Impivaara O, Kroger H, Knekt P, Lauren H, Arokoski JP (2009) Risk factors for the development of hip osteoarthritis: a population-based prospective study. Rheumatology (Oxford, England) 48(1):83–87. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ken427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dagenais S, Garbedian S, Wai EK (2009) Systematic review of the prevalence of radiographic primary hip osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(3):623–637. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0625-5

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Krauss I, Steinhilber B, Haupt G, Miller R, Grau S, Janssen P (2011) Efficacy of conservative treatment regimes for hip osteoarthritis—evaluation of the therapeutic exercise regime “Hip School”: a protocol for a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:270. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-270

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pereira D, Peleteiro B, Araujo J, Branco J, Santos RA, Ramos E (2011) The effect of osteoarthritis definition on prevalence and incidence estimates: a systematic review. Osteoarthr Cartil OARS Osteoarthr Res Soc 19(11):1270–1285. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2011.08.009

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bieler T, Magnusson SP, Kjaer M, Beyer N (2014) Intra-rater reliability and agreement of muscle strength, power and functional performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis. J Rehabil Med 46(10):997–1005. doi:10.2340/16501977-1864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fitzpatrick R, Morris R, Hajat S, Reeves B, Murray DW, Hannen D, Rigge M, Williams O, Gregg P (2000) The value of short and simple measures to assess outcomes for patients of total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care 9(3):146–150

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thorborg K, Roos EM, Bartels EM, Petersen J, Hölmich P (2010) Validity, reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported outcome questionnaires when assessing hip and groin disability: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 44:1186–1196. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.060889

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Frost S, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray D (2001) Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(8):1125–1129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1996) Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care QHC 5(2):81–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Delaunay C, Epinette JA, Dawson J, Murray D, Jolles BM (2009) Cross-cultural adaptations of the Oxford-12 HIP score to the French speaking population. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 95(2):89–99. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2009.01.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gosens T, Hoefnagels NH, de Vet RC, Dhert WJ, van Langelaan EJ, Bulstra SK, Geesink RG (2005) The “Oxford Heup Score” The translation and validation of a questionnaire into Dutch to evaluate the results of total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 76(2):204–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee YK, Chung CY, Park MS, Lee KM, Lee DJ, Lee SC, Koo KH (2012) Transcultural adaptation and testing of psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Oxford hip score. J Orthop Sci Off J Jpn Orthop Assoc 17(4):377–381. doi:10.1007/s00776-012-0230-z

    Google Scholar 

  23. Martinelli N, Longo UG, Marinozzi A, Franceschetti E, Costa V, Denaro V (2011) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation with reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Oxford hip score in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 20(6):923–929. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9811-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Naal FD, Sieverding M, Impellizzeri FM, von Knoch F, Mannion AF, Leunig M (2009) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted German Oxford hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(4):952–957. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0457-3

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ostendorf M, van Stel HF, Buskens E, Schrijvers AJ, Marting LN, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ (2004) Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(6):801–808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Uesugi Y, Makimoto K, Fujita K, Nishii T, Sakai T, Sugano N (2009) Validity and responsiveness of the Oxford hip score in a prospective study with Japanese total hip arthroplasty patients. J Orthop Sci Off J Jpn Orthop Assoc 14(1):35–39. doi:10.1007/s00776-008-1292-9

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zheng W, Li J, Zhao J, Liu D, Xu W (2014) Development of a valid simplified Chinese version of the Oxford hip score in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(5):1545–1551. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3403-y

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tuzun EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Daskapan A, Bayramoglu M (2005) Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthr Cartil OARS Osteoarthr Res Soc 13(1):28–33. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2004.10.010

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Ölmez N, Memiş A (1999) Kısa Form 36 (KF–36)’nın Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi 12(2):102–106

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tuğay U, Tuğay N, Gelecek N, Özkan M (2011) Oxford Shoulder Score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(5):687–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Garratt AM, Brealey S, Gillespie WJ, Team DT (2004) Patient-assessed health instruments for the knee: a structured review. Rheumatology 43(11):1414–1423. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Roddey TS, Olson SL, Cook KF, Gartsman GM, Hanten W (2000) Comparison of the University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale and the Simple Shoulder Test with the shoulder pain and disability index: single-administration reliability and validity. Phys Ther 80(8):759–768

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P, Translation ITFf, Cultural A (2005) Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 8(2):94–104. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N, European Regulatory I, Quality of Life Assessment G (2008) Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11(3):509–521. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00292.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46(12):1417–1432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sidani S, Guruge S, Miranda J, Ford-Gilboe M, Varcoe C (2010) Cultural adaptation and translation of measures: an integrated method. Res Nurs Health 33(2):133–143. doi:10.1002/nur.20364

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Altman DG (1997) Practical statistics for medical research. CRC Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  40. Polgar S, Thomas SA (2013) Introduction to research in the health sciences. Elsevier Health Sciences, China

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hicks C (1988) Practical research methods for physiotherapists. Churchill Livingstone, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Comparing methods of measurement—why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 346(8982):1085–1087. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91748-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Statistics notes: measurement error. BMJ 312(7047):1654

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8(2):135–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Harvill LM (1991) Standard error of measurement. Educ Meas Issues Pract 10(2):33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Middel B, Van Sonderen E (2002) Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care 2:e15

  47. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LA, de Vet HCW (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Martin Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327(8476):307–310. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. García de Yébenes Prous MJ, Salvanés FR, Ortells LC (2008) Responsiveness of outcome Measures. Reumatología Clínica (English Edition) 4(6):240–247. doi:10.1016/S2173-5743(08)70197-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren I (2000) Translation and validation of the Oxford-12 item knee score for use in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71(3):268–274. doi:10.1080/000164700317411861

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Paulsen A, Odgaard A, Overgaard S (2012) Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish version of the Oxford hip score: assessed against generic and disease-specific questionnaires. Bone Joint Res 1(9):225–233. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.19.2000076

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. (2015) Wikipedia Turks in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Europe. Accessed 20 Feb 2015

  53. 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):34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Nourbakhsh M, Zarezadeh A, Shemshaki H, Etemadifar MR, Moezi M, Mazoochian F (2013) Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Oxford Hip Score for Iranian Population. Int J Prev Med 4(2):141

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Muğla School of Health Sciences, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Turkey

    Baki Umut Tuğay & Nazan Tuğay

  2. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    Hande Güney & İnci Yüksel

  3. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Zeynep Hazar

  4. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    Bülent Atilla

Authors
  1. Baki Umut Tuğay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nazan Tuğay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hande Güney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zeynep Hazar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. İnci Yüksel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bülent Atilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baki Umut Tuğay.

Appendix

Appendix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tuğay, B.U., Tuğay, N., Güney, H. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of Oxford hip score. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135, 879–889 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2215-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2215-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation