Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Turkish Version of the International Hip Outcome Tool – 12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Turkish Version of the International Hip Outcome Tool -12J oint preservation surgeries are being applied to young- er patients at an increasing pace.Evaluation scales that are more specifically adjusted according to age and activity types are of more value for these patients.Since the majority of the scales evaluating hip pathologies are designed for patients with total hip arthroplasty, [1] they are negatively biased by the ceiling effect and are of limited benefit for a young and active population.[2] Several scales have been developed in recent years to evaluate the hip problems of this young and active population considering their active lifestyles.These scales are the non-arthritic hip score, [3] the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score, [4] the modified Harris hip score, [5] the hip outcome score, [6] the Copenhagen hip and groin outcome score (HAGOS), [7] and the international hip outcome tool (IHOT-33).[2] At the time of completion of this study, only Hip Outcome Score (HOS) has been translated and validated in Turkish according to the described guidelines.[8] A systematic review has evaluated these patient-reported outcomes (PRO) tools for their efficiency by considering Objectives: The present study aims to conduct a translation and transcultural adaptation of the International Hip Outcome Tool -12 (IHOT-12) into Turkish and evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the Turkish version of IHOT-12 (IHOT-12-TR) for validity and reliability in Turkish patients with hip joint disorders.Methods: Following the translation and transcultural adaptation procedures, 109 patients completed the IHOT-12-TR and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale.The retest was completed by 40 patients approximately one week after the initial assessments.The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were tested.Results: Cronbach's alpha of 0.927 revealed the internal consistency to be highly satisfactory.The overall Interclass coefficient (ICC) between test and retest was 0.927 (p<0.001).The correlation between IHOT-12-TR and WOMAC scores was strong and statistically significant (r=0.815,p<0.001).The explanatory factor analyses revealed that IHOT-12-TR had a single factor structure, explaining 61.9% of the total variance.There was no floor or ceiling effect on the items and overall scale scores. Conclusion:The results of the analyses in this study demonstrated that the Turkish version of the IHOT-12 scale, the IHOT-12-TR, is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate the functionality of patients with hip pathologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".