17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of the Responsiveness of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) Scale

      research-article
      , PhD * , , , MBBS(Hons)
      Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
      SAGE Publications
      ACL injury, scale development, responsiveness, sport psychology

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          The Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) scale is a reliable and valid tool for evaluation of psychological readiness to return to sport after ACL injury, but its responsiveness to change has not been extensively evaluated.

          Purpose:

          To determine the responsiveness of the ACL-RSI scale.

          Study Design:

          Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

          Methods:

          The ACL-RSI scale and the knee confidence question from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Quality of Life subscale was completed at 6 and 12 months after ACL reconstruction surgery. Responsiveness was assessed using distribution and anchor-based methods for the full- and short-form versions of the scale and subgroup analyzed for sex. From distribution statistics, the standardized response mean (SRM) and the smallest detectable change (SDC) were calculated. Using the anchor-based method, the minimally important change (MIC) that was associated with an improvement in knee confidence was determined using receiver operating characteristic analysis.

          Results:

          A total of 441 patients (257 men, 184 women; mean age of 25 years) were included in this study. An SRM of 0.7 was found for both versions, indicating a moderate level of responsiveness. The MIC was 13.4 points for the full-form version and 15.1 points for the short-form version. These values were larger than SDC values at the group level but not at the individual patient level. Responsiveness was similar between male and female patients.

          Conclusion:

          The ACL-RSI scale had sufficient responsiveness to investigate the efficacy of an intervention at a group level, but it may be more limited at an individual patient level.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Index for rating diagnostic tests

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure.

            There is broad consensus that good outcome measures are needed to distinguish interventions that are effective from those that are not. This task requires standardized, patient-centered measures that can be administered at a low cost. We developed a questionnaire to assess short- and long-term patient-relevant outcomes following knee injury, based on the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, a literature review, an expert panel, and a pilot study. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is self-administered and assesses five outcomes: pain, symptoms, activities of daily living, sport and recreation function, and knee-related quality of life. In this clinical study, the KOOS proved reliable, responsive to surgery and physical therapy, and valid for patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The KOOS meets basic criteria of outcome measures and can be used to evaluate the course of knee injury and treatment outcome.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

              The objective of this review is to summarize recommendations on methods for evaluating responsiveness and minimal important difference (MID) for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. We review, summarize, and integrate information on issues and methods for evaluating responsiveness and determining MID estimates for PRO measures. Recommendations are made on best-practice methods for evaluating responsiveness and MID. The MID for a PRO instrument is not an immutable characteristic, but may vary by population and context, and no one MID may be valid for all study applications. MID estimates should be based on multiple approaches and triangulation of methods. Anchor-based methods applying various relevant patient-rated, clinician-rated, and disease-specific variables provide primary and meaningful estimates of an instrument's MID. Results for the PRO measures from clinical trials can also provide insight into observed effects based on treatment comparisons and should be used to help determine MID. Distribution-based methods can support estimates from anchor-based approaches and can be used in situations where anchor-based estimates are unavailable. We recommend that the MID is based primarily on relevant patient-based and clinical anchors, with clinical trial experience used to further inform understanding of MID.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Orthop J Sports Med
                Orthop J Sports Med
                OJS
                spojs
                Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                2325-9671
                18 August 2021
                August 2021
                : 9
                : 8
                : 23259671211031240
                Affiliations
                []School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, Ringgold 2080, universityLa Trobe University; , Melbourne, Australia.
                []OrthoSport Victoria, Epworth HealthCare, Melbourne, Australia.
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Kate E. Webster, PhD, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086, Australia (email: k.webster@ 123456latrobe.edu.au ) (Twitter: @DrKateWebster).
                Article
                10.1177_23259671211031240
                10.1177/23259671211031240
                8377323
                34423062
                5aed6c04-d583-4e3a-b73d-fdb97f7ecafe
                © The Author(s) 2021

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 16 March 2021
                : 30 March 2021
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                ts3

                acl injury,scale development,responsiveness,sport psychology

                Comments

                Comment on this article