↓ Skip to main content

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 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
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0935-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina Torre, Ilaria Luzi, Fiorino Mirabella, Martina Del Manso, Gustavo Zanoli, Gabriele Tucci, Emilio Romanini

Abstract

To create a translated version of the HOOS to fit the Italian population and to test its psychometric properties and validity in hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). The HOOS Italian version was developed according to published international guidelines that include preparation, forward translation and reconciliation, backward translation, review and harmonization, and proof reading. The Italian HOOS was administered to 145 patients (mean age 65.7 ± 11.6 years, 34-89, 58.6% women) undergoing THA. The following psychometric properties were evaluated: internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha); test-retest reliability (Pearson's r and intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC); convergent validity (Spearman's rho between HOOS and SF-36); responsiveness (comparison of pre/post-THA scores, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Interpretability (floor and ceiling effects, skewness and kurtosis indexes) and acceptability (time to compiling, missing answers, and autonomy in compilation) were also evaluated. Translation and transcultural adaptation were conducted in accordance with the international recommendation. The translation was deemed understandable and appropriate as to the transcultural adaptation. None of the patients reported to have met any difficulties in reading and understanding the HOOS items. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were good for each HOOS subscale (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.7, Pearson's r and ICC > 0.80). Convergent validity showed the highest correlations (Spearman's rho > 0.5) between HOOS and SF-36 subscales relating to similar dimensions. As to responsiveness, all HOOS subscales scores improved significantly after THA (p < 0.01). Interpretability was acceptable despite ceiling effect in post-THA assessment. Acceptability was good: HOOS resulted easy and quick to fill out (12 min on average). The HOOS was successfully cross-culturally adapted into Italian. The Italian HOOS showed good psychometric properties therefore it can be useful to assess outcomes in OA patients after THA. This study provided a basis for its use within the Italian Arthroplasty Registry and for future clinical trials.

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 %
Other 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 18 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Materials Science 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 18 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 23 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,725,490
of 23,085,832 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#343
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,294
of 329,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#29
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,085,832 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 329,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.