Skip to main content
Log in

Validity and responsiveness of the test of athletes with knee injuries: the new criterion based functional performance test instrument

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and responsiveness of the new criterion-based test instrument test for athletes with knee-injuries (TAK) which has been evaluated for reliability in an earlier study. Thirty-five subjects between 18 and 50 years were included in the study. They were all anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-reconstructed and operated with hamstrings graft. The test-occasions were at 4 and 8 months after operation. The content validity of the TAK was evaluated by determining floor and ceiling effects 4 and 8 months after ACL-operation. Floor or ceiling effects <30% were considered acceptable. The criterion validity was evaluated by implementing correlations between the TAK and the two common used validated and reliable scores, the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36). To evaluate the construct validity the performance of the eight tests of the TAK was compared to the performance of the healthy leg that represented normal ability. The hypothesis was that the patient and the physiotherapist who assessed the knee function decreased compared to the healthy leg would have a lower score of the TAK. The responsiveness of the TAK was evaluated by comparing the effect size of the test-instruments between 4 and 8 months after the operation. At 4 months after operation there were no floor or ceiling effects in any of the eight tests in TAK, except in “Test IV-patients’ assessment” and in “Test I-physiotherapist’s assessment” that both demonstrated a ceiling effects of 31%. At 8 months there were ceiling effects in five of the eight tests in “TAK-patients’ assessment” and in all eight tests assessed by the physiotherapist. IKDC/sport activities had ceiling effects in five of the nine activities at 4 months and in all of them at 8 months. SF-36/scale physical functioning had no floor or ceiling effect neither 4 nor 8 months after operation. At 4 months postoperatively the correlation between the TAK/patients’ assessment and IKDC/sport activities was moderate (0.59), while the correlation between TAK/physiotherapist’s assessment and IKDC/sport activities was low (0.47). At the same test-occasion there were moderate correlations between SF-36/scale physical functioning and TAK/patients’ assessment and TAK/physiotherapist’s assessment (0.61 and 0.57), respectively. At eight months the correlations were moderate within all areas except between TAK/patients’ assessment and IKDC/sport activities where the correlation was high (0.70). Construct validity for TAK was good seeing that all of the tests showed significant differences between the operated and the healthy non-operated leg (P ≤ 0.05). The responsiveness of the TAK measured as the effect size was large in five tests and moderate in three tests. The total points for TAK/patients’ assessment and TAK/physiotherapist’s assessment showed large effect size (1.08 and 1.03), respectively. IKDC/total score and SF-36 scale physical functioning showed moderate effect size (0.79 and 0.41), respectively. The result of this study showed that the TAK is a reliable instrument with a large effect size for changes over time, indicating that the TAK is a very sensitive functional test instrument assessing the ACL-reconstructed patients during the rehabilitation period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson M, Foreman T (1996) Return to competition, functional rehabilitation. In: Zachazewski J, Magee D, Quillen W (eds) Athletic injuries and rehabilitation, vol 13. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 229–261

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bandy W (1992) Functional rehabilitation of the athlete. Orthop Phys Ther Clin North Am 1:269–281

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barber S, Noyes F, Mangine R, McCloskey J, Hartman W (1990) Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clin Orthop 255:204–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Björklund K, Sköld C, Andersson L, Dalén N (2006) Reliability of a criterion-based test of athletes with knee injuries; where the physiotherapist and the patient independently and simultaneously assess the patient’s performance. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Borsa P, Leparth S, Irrgang J (1998) Comparison of performance-based and patient-reported measure of function in anterior cruciate ligament deficient individuals. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:392–399

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Briggs K, Kocher M, Rodkey W, Steadman J (2006) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee score and Tegner activity scale for patients with meniscal injury of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:698–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brosky J, Nitz A, Malone T, Cabron D, Rayens M (1999) Intrarater reliability of selected clinical outcome measures following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 29:39–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Clarc N (2001) Functional performance testing following knee ligament injury (review article). Phys Ther Sports 2:91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crawford K, Briggs K, William R, Steadman J (2007) Reliability, validity and responsivness of the IKDC score for meniscus injuries of the knee. Arthrosc Ass North Am 23:839–844

    Google Scholar 

  10. Daniel D, Malcom L, Stone M, Perth H, Morgan J, Riehl B (1982) Quantification of knee stability and function. Contemp Orthop 5:83–91

    Google Scholar 

  11. Domholdt E (2000) Statistical analysis of relationships: the basics. In: Physical therapy research, principles and applications, 2nd edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia

  12. Eastlack M, Axe M, Snyder-Mackler L (1999) Laxity, instability and functional outcome after ACL injury: copers versus noncopers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31:210–215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gauffin H, Pettersson G, Tegner Y, Tropp H (1990) Function testing in patient with old rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. Int J Sports Med 11:73–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goh S, Boyle J (1997) Self-evaluation and functional testing two to four years post-ACL reconstruction. Austr J Ther Rehabil 43:255–262

    Google Scholar 

  15. Greenberger H, Paterno M (1995) Relationship of knee extensor strength and hopping test performance in assessment of lower extremity function. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 22:202–206

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gustavsson A, Neeter C, Thomeé P, Grävare Silbernagel K, Augustsson J, Thomeé R, Karlsson J (2006) A test battery for evaluation hop performance in patients with ACL injury and patients who have undergone ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:778–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Harter R, Osternig L, Singer K, James S, Larson R, Jones D (1998) Long-term evaluation of knee stability and function following surgical reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency. Am J Sports Med 16:434–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hefti F, Muller W, Jacobs R, Stäubli H (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Irrgang J, Anderson A, Boland A, Harner C, Neyret P, Richmond J, Shelbourne D (2006) Responsiveness of the IKDC subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 34:1567–1573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Irrgang J, Anderson A, Harner C, Kurosaka M, Richmond J, Shelborne D (2001) Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 29:600–613

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Irrgang J, Ho H, Harner C, Fu F (1998) Use of the international knee documentation committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6:107–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kane R (1997) Outcome measures. In: Kane R (ed) Understanding health care outcomes research. Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, pp 17–18

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kaziz L, Anderson J, Meenan R (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Keays S, Bullock-Saxton J, Keays A (2000) Strength and function before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Orthop Rel Res 373:174–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lephart S, Henry T (1995) Functional rehabilitation for the upper and lower extremity. Orthop Clin North Am 26:579–592

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lephart S, Perrin D, Fu F, Gieck J, McCue F, Irrgang J (1992) Relationship between selected physical characteristics and functional capacity in the anterior cruciate ligament-insufficient athlete. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 16:174–181

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Liang M, Fossel A, Larson M (1990) Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 28:632–642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Marx R, Stump T, Jones E, Wickiewicz T, Warren R (2001) Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee. Am J Sports Med 29:213–218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. McHorney A, Ware E, Rachel F, Sherbourne D (1994) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 32:40–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. McHorney C, Ware J, Raczek A (1993) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31:247–263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Miller R, Carr A (1993) The knee. In: Pynsent P, Fairbank J, Carr A (eds) Outcome measure in orthpaedics, vol 11. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, pp 229–241

    Google Scholar 

  33. Neeb T, Aufdemkampe G, Wagener J, Mastenbroek L (1997) Assessing anterior cruciate ligament the association and differential value of questionnaires, clinical tests, and functional tests. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 26:324–331

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Paxton E, Fithian D, Stone M, Silva P (2003) The reliablity and validity of knee-specific and general health instuments in assessing acute patellar dislocation outcomes. Am J Sports Med 31:487–492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Risberg M, Holm I, Steen H, Beynnon B (1999) Sensitivity to changes over time for the IKDC form, the Lysholm score, and the Cincinnati knee score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 7:152–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sim J, Arnell P (1993) Measurement validity in physical therapy research. Phys Ther 73:102–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware J (1995) The Swedish SF-36 health survey-1. Evaluation of data quality scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med 41:1349–1358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Tegner Y, Lysholm J, Lysholm M, Gillquist J (1986) A performance test to monitor rehabilitation and evaluate anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 14:156–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tippet S, Voight M (1995) Functional progressions for sport rehabilitation. Human Kinetics, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ware J, Shelbourne C (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Björklund.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Björklund, K., Andersson, L. & Dalén, N. Validity and responsiveness of the test of athletes with knee injuries: the new criterion based functional performance test instrument. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17, 435–445 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0674-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0674-z

Keywords

Navigation