Validity and Internal Consistency of the New Knee Society Knee Scoring System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In 2012, a new Knee Society Knee Scoring System (KSS) was developed and validated to address the needs for a scoring system that better encompasses the expectations, satisfaction, and physical involvement of a younger, more active population of patients undergoing TKA. Revalidating this tool in a separate population by individuals other than the developers of the scoring system seems important, because such replication would tend to confirm the generalizability of this tool. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were (1) to validate the KSS using a separate sample of patients undergoing primary TKA; and (2) to evaluate the internal consistency of the KSS. METHODS: Intervention and control groups from a randomized controlled trial with no between-group differences were pooled. Preoperative and postoperative (6 weeks and 1 year) data were used. Patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary TKA completed the patient-reported component of the KSS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), SF-12, two independent questions about expectations of surgery, and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) single-question outcome. This study included 345 patients with 221 (64%) women, an average (SD) age of 64 (8.6) years, a mean (SD) body mass index of 32.9 (7.5) kg/m, and 225 (68%) having their first primary TKA. Loss to followup in the control group was 18% and loss to followup in the intervention group was 13%. We quantified cross-sectional (preoperative scores) and longitudinal validity (pre- to postoperative change scores) by evaluating associations between the KSS and KOOS subscales using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Preoperative known-group validity of the KSS symptoms and functional activity score was evaluated with a one-way analysis of variance across three levels of physical health status using the SF-12 Physical Component Score. Known-group validity of the KSS expectation score was evaluated with an unpaired t-test by comparing means across known expectation groups. Known-group validity of the KSS satisfaction score was evaluated with an unpaired t-test by comparing means across yes/no response groupings of the PASS single-question outcome. Internal consistency for each KSS subscale was evaluated with Cronbach's α. RESULTS: Cross-sectional validity (ie, associations at a single point in time) was supported because correlation coefficients between KSS symptoms, functional activities, and satisfaction scores and scores on the KOOS pain subscale ranged from 0.60 to 0.73 (all correlations p < 0.01). Values were similar for associations with the KOOS function in the activities of daily living (ADL) subscale (0.66-0.69) and less (0.41-0.58) for correlations with the other three KOOS subscales. Longitudinal validity (ie, associations of change scores between two time points) was also supported because correlation coefficients between KSS symptoms, functional activities, and satisfaction change scores and the KOOS pain and ADL change scores varied from 0.63 to 0.73. Correlation coefficients were lower for the other three KOOS subscale change scores, suggesting a weaker relationship with KOOS symptoms (0.48-0.53), sports (0.47-0.51), and quality of life (0.60-0.65) (all correlations p < 0.01). Known-group validity (ie, differences between groups that are known to differ on a given characteristic) was confirmed by between-group differences for the symptoms and functional activities score comparisons as well as the comparisons with the expectations and satisfaction scores of the KSS (all p < 0.01). Cronbach's α (ie, association among subscale items) varied from 0.68 (discretionary activities) to 0.94 (postoperative expectations) across four KSS subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-sized correlation coefficients and consistent differences between known groups support the validity of the KSS. Internal consistency values were also acceptable. The patient-reported subscales of the KSS are a valid and internally consistent outcome assessment for TKA.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».