Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Greek Versions of the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and Tegner Activity Scale

Abstract

The Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale (LKSS) and the Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) are widely used instruments for assessing knee function and activity level in various knee pathologies, especially knee ligament injuries. The purpose of this study was to translate and crossculturally adapt the Greek versions of the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale (Gr-LKSS) and Tegner Activity Scale (Gr-TAS) and assess their reliability and validity in Greek patients suffering from various knee problems. Materials and methods Translation of the LKSS and TAS questionnaires was done according to established international guidelines. Fifty-five patients (32 males and 23 females; mean age: 24 ±7 years; range: 17-54 years) with various knee pathologies completed the Gr-LKSS and Gr-TAS along with the Greek versions of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, the Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Test-retest reliability was evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in 53 (96%) individuals, who completed the questionnaires again after 48-72 hours while abstaining from all forms of treatment. Internal consistency for the Gr-LKSS was measured using Cronbach's alpha and criterion-related validity was evaluated with the Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) in relation to control questionnaires (IKDC, KOS-ADLS, OKS). The distribution of floor and ceiling effects were also determined. Results There were no problems during the forward-backward translation and cultural adaptation of the Gr-LKSS and Gr-TAS. Criterion-related validity was confirmed with moderate to high associations of Gr-LKSS and Gr-TAS (after injury) with the IKDC and KOS-ADLS (Pearson's r ranging between 0.61-0.71 and 0.64-0.73, respectively). However, weak correlations were yielded between both questionnaires with the OKS (r=0.14-0.19). The internal consistency for Gr-LKSS was high (Cronbach's alpha: 0.779) and the test-retest reliability was high for both questionnaires (Gr-LKSS: ICC=0.950; Gr-TAS before and after injury: ICCs of 0.877 and 0.876, respectively). Conclusion 1 2 3 4 3 2 2 5

The Arabic Version of the Tegner Activity Scale in Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Translation, Validation, and Cross-Cultural Adaptation

“…The reliability of the TAS-Ar is also similar to that of the previous adaptation of the scale into Dutch (ICC = 0.97) [11] and Simplified-Chinese (ICC = 0.99) [10] in patients post-ACLR. Furthermore, our results are comparable to the results of the Persian version in patients with ACL injury (ICC = 0.81) [12] and the Greek version in patients with ACL and other knee injuries (ICC = 0.87) [13]. In our study, patients who completed the TAS-Ar for test-retest reliability reported no changes in knee function, no recurrent knee injury, and no other injury in any part of the body between the two testing sessions.…”

“…TAS is one of the most frequently used scales in ACL-related studies to document the level of work/sport activities of patients with ACL injury and ACLR [ 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Moreover, the TAS has been translated and cross-culturally adapted into different languages [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. To our knowledge, there is a lack of reliable and valid Arabic outcome measures that can be used to evaluate the level of work/sport activities in patients after ACLR.…”

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Relevant to Musculoskeletal Conditions Translated and Validated in the Greek Language: A COSMIN-Based Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

“…Six instruments were retrieved that can be used for various knee pathologies, the Knee Outcome Survey-Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS), 12 the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) 13 and KOOS-Child, 14 the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) 15 , the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale (LKSS), 16 and the Tegner Activity Scale (TAS). 16 …”

“…3 It is usually assessed with factor analysis. In the majority of the studies, factor analysis was not performed, 8 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 – 19 , 20 , 24 , 26 – 28 , 31 – 33 , 36 and the authors assumed models from other studies that evaluated the structural validity of the construct of interest.…”

The Effect of Exercise Intervention on Disability and Kinesiophobia in a Retired Athlete With Old Patella Fracture: A Case Report

“…It included 8 domains that assess instability (0–25 points), pain (0–25 points), locking (0–15 points), stair-climbing (0–10 points), swelling (0–10 points), and support (0–5 points), squatting (0–5 points), and limping (0–5 points). The score ranges from 0 to 100 points is calculated, with excellent (95–100 points), good (84–94 points), fair (65–83 points), and poor (≤64 points) (Panagopoulos et al, 2020 ).…”