Bkground No studies have tested the validity of the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) using modern test theory, across different cultures and languages.
Objective To validate the Danish, English and Norwegian versions of HAGOS and its six subscales (Symptoms (S, Item 1–7), Pain (P, Item 1–10), activities of daily living (Item 1–5), Sport and recreation (Sport/rec, Item 1–8), Participation in physical activity (item 1–2) and quality of life (item 1–5)) by evaluating differential item functioning (DIF) and measurement invariance across the three language versions in male multidirectional team athletes with groin pain. Second, to modify subscales depending on goodness-of-fit to the item response theory models and calculate conversion tables if language DIF was observed.
Methods We included individual responses to the Danish (n=157), English (n=146) and Norwegian (n=149) language versions of HAGOS from 452 athletes (median age 24 years old, range 20–28) with groin pain. Overall fit, model fit, individual item fit, local response dependence and measurement invariance was examined using confirmatory factor analysis and graphical Rasch models.
Results The removal of seven misfitting items (S2, P1, P2, A4, SP1, SP5, Q3) resulted in 6 HAGOS subscales with acceptable psychometric properties. For the Symptoms, Pain and Sports subscales evidence of DIF was disclosed between the three different language-versions of HAGOS and conversion tables were created.
Conclusions A revised HAGOS derived using modern test theory provides valid measurements for male multidirectional athletes with groin pain across different cultures and languages. Conversion tables must be applied to compare HAGOS scores from Danish, Norwegian and English language versions.
- sports medicine
- surveys and questionnaires
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. Statistical code and dataset are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Twitter @mikkelbek, @enda_king, @JHaroey
Contributors KBC, MBC and KT all participated in the conception and design of the study. KT and MBC were responsible for acquisition of data. KBC did the statistical analysis, and all authors took part in the interpretation of the data. KBC and KT drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript. KBC and KT are the guarantors.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests KT is the developer of HAGOS.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.