You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • The VISA-A (sedentary) should be used for sedentary patients with Achilles tendinopathy: a modified version of the VISA-A developed and evaluated in accordance with the COSMIN checklist

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
The VISA-A (sedentary) should be used for sedentary patients with Achilles tendinopathy: a modified version of the VISA-A developed and evaluated in accordance with the COSMIN checklist
  1. Richard Norris1,
  2. Jill L Cook2,
  3. Jamie E Gaida2,
  4. Thomas Maddox3,
  5. Jaya Raju4,
  6. Seth O'Neill5
  1. 1Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
  2. 2La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3University of Liverpool Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Liverpool, UK
  4. 4University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  5. 5School of Healthcare, Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Richard Norris, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool L9 7AL, UK; Richard.Norris2{at}liverpoolft.nhs.uk

Abstract

Objective To develop and evaluate a modified version of the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) questionnaire, for use in sedentary patients with Achilles tendinopathy, using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments recommendations.

Methods Twenty-two sedentary patients with Achilles tendinopathy completed the VISA-A and provided feedback regarding the relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of each item, response options and instructions. Patient and professional feedback was used to develop the VISA-A (sedentary) questionnaire. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the VISA-A (sedentary) was evaluated in 51 sedentary patients with Achilles tendinopathy: 47.1% women, mean age 64.8 (SD 11.24).

Results Factor analysis identified two dimensions (symptoms and activity) for the VISA-A (sedentary). Test–retest reliability was excellent for symptoms (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC=0.991) and activity (ICC=0.999). Repeatability was 1.647 for symptoms and 0.549 for activity. There was a significant difference between the VISA-A and VISA-A (sedentary) scores both pretreatment and post-treatment. There was stronger correlation between the pretreatment to post-treatment change in the VISA-A (sedentary) scores (r=0.420 for symptoms, r=0.407 for activity) and the global rating of change than the VISA-A scores (r=0.253 for symptoms, r=0.186 for activity).

Conclusion The VISA-A (sedentary) demonstrates adequate reliability, validity and responsiveness in sedentary patients with Achilles tendinopathy. The VISA-A (sedentary) is a more appropriate measure than the VISA-A for this cohort and is recommended for clinical and research purposes.

  • Achilles
  • Tendinopathy

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2022-105547

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available on reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @thekneeresource, @tendonresearch, @sethoneill

    • Contributors RN and SO'N contributed to the study design, development of the VISA-A (sedentary), data collection, data analysis and writing up of the study. JLC and JEG contributed to the study design and development of the VISA-A (sedentary). JR contributed to data collection. TM contributed to data analysis and writing up of the study. RN is responsible for the overall content as guarantor.

    • 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 None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • 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.