↓ Skip to main content

Development of a Chinese version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of a Chinese version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13018-016-0424-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. W. Tong, W. Wang, W. D. Xu

Abstract

The Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) is a questionnaire designed to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with meniscal pathology. Our study aims to culturally adapt and validate the WOMET into a Chinese version. We translated the WOMET into Chinese. Then, a total of 121 patients with meniscal pathology were invited to participate in this study. To assess the test-retest reliability, the Chinese version WOMET was completed twice at 7-day intervals by the participants. The construct validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient or Spearman's correlation to test for correlations among the Chinese version WOMET and the eight domains of Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. Responsiveness was tested by comparison of the preoperative and postoperative scores of the Chinese version WOMET. The test-retest reliability of the overall scale and different domains were all found to be excellent. The Cronbach's α was 0.90. The Chinese version WOMET correlated well with other questionnaires which suggested good construct validity. We observed no ceiling and floor effects of the Chinese version WOMET. We also found good responsiveness for the effect size, and the standardized response mean values were 0.86 and 1.11. The Chinese version of the WOMET appears to be reliable and valid in evaluating patients with meniscal pathology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Other 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 25 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 27 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,269,286
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#495
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,042
of 344,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#11
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.