Performance of the HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 instruments for evaluating outcomes from joint replacement surgery

I. N. Ackerman, S. E. Soh, I. A. Harris, Kara Cashman, E. Heath, M. Lorimer, S. E. Graves

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the 12-item Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12) for use in evaluating outcomes after joint replacement for osteoarthritis. Design: Patient-reported outcomes data collected by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 domain (pain, function, quality of life) and summary impact data were available. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EQ-5D-5L were used as comparators. Instruments were administered pre-operatively and at 6 months post-operatively. Internal consistency reliability, floor and ceiling effects, convergent validity, known groups validity, and responsiveness were evaluated using standard psychometric techniques. Results: Baseline HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 data were available for 3,023 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement and 4,010 patients undergoing primary total knee replacement. At baseline, high internal consistency was demonstrated for all domains and summary scores (Cronbach's alpha: HOOS-12 = 0.81–0.93; KOOS-12 = 0.82–0.92). Post-operative ceiling effects (>15% of patients scoring the best possible score) were identified for the HOOS-12 pain (46%), function (39%) and quality of life domains (26%) and summary score (17%), and for the KOOS-12 pain (21%) and function domains (18%). The HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 could differentiate between two known groups (lowest/highest OHS or OKS quartiles post-operatively; p < 0.001) and were highly responsive to change (effect sizes for HOOS-12: 2.20–2.83; KOOS-12: 1.82–2.35). Conclusion: The HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 have good psychometric properties for capturing joint replacement outcomes including excellent responsiveness, although ceiling effects may limit monitoring of post-operative improvement.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)815-823
Number of pages9
JournalOsteoarthritis and Cartilage
Volume29
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2021

Keywords

  • Hip arthroplasty
  • Hip replacement
  • Knee arthroplasty
  • Knee replacement
  • Patient-reported outcome measures
  • Quality of life

Cite this