Original ArticleSelf-reported physical functioning was more influenced by pain than performance-based physical functioning in knee-osteoarthritis patients
Introduction
There is an ongoing debate about the validity of performance-based measures vs. self-report questionnaires to assess physical functioning in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. A performance-based measure is one in which an individual is asked to perform one or more specific tasks that are evaluated in a standardized manner using predefined criteria, such as counting repetitions or timing of the activities [10]. A self-report measure is one in which an individual is asked to indicate his/her perceived level of functioning during daily activities, described in standardized questions.
A number of arguments have been proposed in favor of one or the other method. Some authors prefer self-report questionnaires because these are claimed to be easier to use, less time-consuming, and less of a burden to patients [8]. Others argue that self-report questionnaires are preferred because they cannot be influenced by observer bias [5]. Performance-based methods have been considered less valid because they measure physical functioning in an artificial situation, are influenced by the subject's motivation to participate, and may provide little information about how a person copes in his/her own environment [6], [7]. On the other hand, performance-based methods are claimed to be less influenced by psychologic factors such as expectations and beliefs [9], cognitive impairments [4], culture, language, and education level [1], [7]. Furthermore, it has been suggested that performance-based measures may identify early deficits in physical functioning (“preclinical disability”) before they are identified by self-reports [2], [3].
There is a paucity of studies that empirically investigate these claims. Numerous studies report moderate correlations between performance-based measures and self-report measures [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], but most hypotheses about possible explanations have not been empirically tested.
Recently Stratford et al. [13] suggested two possible explanations for the modest correlation between performance-based measures and self-report measures of physical functioning in 93 patients awaiting hip or knee arthroplasty. These explanations were: (1) lack of reliability of the performance-based measures; and (2) lack of content validity of the performance-based measures. They argued that performance-based measures based on time alone inadequately represent the breadth of health concepts associated with functional status. In a study in 93 patients awaiting total hip or knee replacement they found a moderate correlation of a self-report measure (the Lower Extremity Functional Scale—LEFS) with a performance-based measure of physical functioning (40-meter fast self-paced walk). To increase the reliability of the performance-based measure, three performance-based functioning scores (self-paced walk, timed up-and-go, and stair test) were summed. In contrast with their hypothesis, the correlation of the LEFS with the sum of the three timed scores was not higher than the correlations of the LEFS with the individual timed scores. They concluded that measurement error could not explain the modest correlation between self-report measures of physical functioning and performance-based measures of physical functioning. In contrast, by adding scores for pain and exertion to the performance-based time score, the correlation with self-reported physical functioning increased. They considered this as evidence for a lack of content validity of the performance-based test [13].
However, based on their results, we would draw the opposite conclusion, and consider their results as evidence for a lack of content validity of the self-report measures of physical functioning. Stratford et al.'s results show that self-reported levels of functioning refer not only to the time to complete the task, but also to pain and exertion, while these measures claim to measure only functioning, not a combination of pain and functioning. Many self-report questionnaires, like the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) [16] and the MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) [17], claim to measure pain and functioning as two different constructs, with different subscales.
Following this line of reasoning, our hypothesis is that self-report measures of physical functioning will be more influenced by the amount of pain experienced than performance-based measures of physical functioning. As a consequence, we expect that the correlation between self-report measures of physical functioning and performance-based measures of physical functioning is higher in patients with less pain. The aim of this study was to test this hypothesis in a population of patients undergoing knee replacement surgery.
Section snippets
Design
We compared the validated DynaPort® KneeTest (DPKT) (McRoberts B.V., The Hague, The Netherlands) [18], [19], [20] as a performance-based measure of physical functioning with the self-report WOMAC [16] subscale physical functioning and the self-report MOS SF-36 [17] subscale physical functioning, in subgroups of knee-OA patients with different levels of pain, as measured with the WOMAC and SF-36 pain subscales.
Patients
Patients who underwent total knee replacement surgery between January 1997 and
Results
The study population consisted of 163 patients who completed the DPKT and the WOMAC and SF-36 questionnaires before knee replacement surgery. In Table 1 patients' characteristics before surgery are displayed. Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for the DPKT KneeScore2 and the WOMAC and SF-36 pain and physical functioning subscores before surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up.
Discussion
Most results of this study confirmed our hypothesis that self-report measures of physical functioning are more influenced by the amount of pain experienced than performance-based measures of physical functioning. The results were more convincing for the WOMAC than for the SF-36.
Although the patient sample was not a consecutive sample, the patient characteristics are comparable with those of the study population of Stratford et al.'s study [13]. Stratford et al. found in factor analysis that the
Conflict of interest statement
Rob C. van Lummel and Rienk M.A. van der Slikke work at McRoberts BV, which is the developer of the performance-based test that was used in this study. They were involved in the design and execution of the study and commented on the manuscript, but they never had a veto on any decision, and were not involved in the data analyses. McRoberts BV did not financially support this study.
References (32)
- et al.
Measuring functional status: cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between performance and self-report (Zutphen Elderly Study 1990–1993)
J Clin Epidemiol
(1996) - et al.
Comparison of gender and group differences in self-report and physical performance measures in total hip and knee arthroplasty candidates
J Arthroplasty
(2002) - et al.
Construct validity of the DynaPort® KneeTest: a comparison with observations of physical therapists
Osteoarthritis Cartilage
(2005) - et al.
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) and Lequesne osteoarthritis indices for clinical research
Osteoarthritis Cartilage
(2001) - et al.
Reliability and validity of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index in Italian patients with osteoarthritis of the knee
Osteoarthritis Cartilage
(2003) - et al.
Comparison of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index and a self-report format of the self-administered Lequesne-Algofunctional index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis Cartilage
(1998) - et al.
Algo-functional assessment of knee osteoarthritis: comparison of the test–retest reliability and construct validity of the WOMAC and Lequesne indexes
Osteoarthritis Cartilage
(2002) - et al.
Validation of the Western Ontario and Mcmaster University osteoarthritis index in Asians with osteoarthritis in Singapore
Osteoarthritis Cartilage
(2001) - et al.
A comparison of patients' responses about their disability with and without attribution to their affected area
J Clin Epidemiol
(2001) - et al.
Self-reported and performance-based functional status and associated factors among elderly men: the Finnish cohorts of the Seven Countries Study
J Clin Epidemiol
(1998)