- Research Article
- Open Access
The international Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33): multicenter validation and translation to Spanish
© Ruiz-Ibán et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015
- Received: 12 January 2015
- Accepted: 30 April 2015
- Published: 20 May 2015
The international Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) is a 33-item self administered outcome measure based on a Visual Analogue Scale response format designed for young and active population with hip pathology. The aim of the present study is to translate and validate the iHOT-33 into Spanish.
97 patients undergoing hip arthroscopy were included in this prospective and multicenter study performed between January 2012 and May 2014. Crosscultural adaptation was used to translate iHOT-33 into Spanish. Patients completed the questionnaire before and after surgery. Feasibility, reliability, internal consistency, construct validity (correlation with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), ceiling and floor effects and sensitivity to change were assessed for the present study.
Mean age was 48 years old. Feasibility: 41.2 % patients had no blank questions, and 71.3 % of patients had fulfilled all but one or two questions. Reliability: ICC for the global questionnaire was 0.97, showing that the questionnaire is highly reproducible. Internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha was 0.98 for the global questionnaire. Construct validity: there was a high correlation with WOMAC (correlation coefficient >0.5). The Ceiling effect (taking into account the minimum detectable change) was 12.1 % and the floor effect was 21.6 %, for the global questionnaire. Large sensitivity to change was shown.
the Spanish version of iHOT-33 has shown to be feasible, reliable and sensible to changes for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. This validated translation of iHOT-33 allows for comparisons between studies involving either Spanish- or English-speaking patients.
Level of evidence
Prognostic study, Level I.
- Floor Effect
- Crosscultural Adaptation
- Standardize Response Mean
- Minimal Detectable Change
The prevalence of hip injuries in the young adult population is significant. In the last decades there has been significant advances in the identification and treatment of different pathologic conditions that affect the young adult hip such as labral tears, cartilage injury, capsular/iliofemoral ligament injury, femoroacetabular impingement, hip instability and athletic pubalgia [1–3].
Questionnaires are a key tool in orthopedic surgery, as well as in other many specialties, in order to assess the impact that any procedure has on patients’ daily life and correctly evaluate what impact any treatment protocol has in a specific pathology. The classic tools designed to evaluate results in patients with hip pathology (sucha as the Harris Hip Score  or the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index  (WOMAC) score) were initially designed to evaluate patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) and had significant functional impairment, these tools have limtations when used to assess problems in younger adults with subtle hip dysfunction that are however functionally significant for them .
A recent meta-analysis by Thorborg et al. suggest that a new patient-reported outcome questionnaire should be developed in younger patients with hip and/or groin patients , in line with the study by Tijssen et al. . Other authors have stated the benefits of hip arthroscopy for intra-articular pathology, although more specific tools should be used to study the impact of surgery . To date, the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) questionnare is the first addressed to young and active patients with hip disorders. The iHOT-33 is a 33-item self administered outcome measure based on a VAS response format designed for young and active population with hip pathology . iHOT-33 has shown to be reliable and shows face, content, and construct validity, as well as being highly responsive to clinical change . Harris-Hayes et al. stated iHOT-33, together with Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score scored the best when assessing treatment of FAI .
The vast majority of questionnaires for hip problems have been developed in English, and therefore must undergo a validated translation that is mandatory for its use in a language different from the one in which it was developed [11–14]. To our knowledge, iHOT-33 has only previously been translated to Portuguese, although the authors did not perform a validation . The aim of this study is to translate the iHOT-33 questionnaire into Spanish and to validate the translation in order to provide health care professionals in all Spanish-speaking countries with a more specific evaluation tool for young patients with hip disorders.
The iHOT-33 questionnaire is divided into four sections; 1) Symptoms and functional limitations, 2) Sports and recreational activities, 3) Job related concerns, and 4) Social, emotional and lifestyle concerns . Questions are evaluated according to the 100-point Visual Analogue Scale format previously used in other questionnaires [16, 17]. This score does not require mathematical transformation and is easily understood. Each question scores out of 100, 0 representing the worst possible quality-of-life score and 100 being the best score possible. Summing up the scores from all questions and dividing them by the number of questions answered determines the patient’s final score out of 100, it is also easy to calculate an independent score for each domain [16, 17].
Forward translation of the original iHOT-33 (English) into Spanish, by two independent professional translators (one English-native and one Spanish-native).
Review of the translations and synthesis of the first draft (version 0.1)
Back-translation of version 0.1 in Spanish to English by two English-native translators.
Review of both the back and forward translations. Drafting of the second version in Spanish (version 0.2) by an expert linguistic translator specialized in medical questionnaires and by a third translator.
Pretesting of the work (version 0.2) by a panel of 4 orthopedic physicians and 30 patients to assure that the text could be understood. Writing of version 1.0 (final version, see Appendix 1).
Patients included in the present study completed version 1.0 of the questionnaire and all statistical analysis of the psychometric parameters was performed upon this version 1.0.
A prospective study with 100 patients was performed between January 2012 and May 2014 in order to carry out the transcultural adaptation and a validation of the iHOT-33.
Four surgeons from different medical centres were involved in recruiting 25 patients each. Patients were included if they were between the ages of 18 and 60, and had symptomatic hip pathology for at least 6 months which required surgical treatment and had it scheduled. Patients were informed that their data from questionnaires would be used for this research and written and oral consent was obtained. Although 100 patients were initially recruited for the present study, three patients were lost during follow-up and thus 97 were the final number of patients included. The patients were consecutively recruited in each surgeon clinic and included in the study when they fulfilled the inclusion criteria, signed the written consent form and undertook the surgical procedure.
The patients were given a questionnaire that included a copy of the translated iHOT-33 scale and a copy of the Spanish version of the WOMAC  and were asked to fulfill it in clinic. They were also provided with a second blank copy of the questionnaire with an stamped and addressed envelope with instructions to fulfill it again in 15 days and send it back to the investigators. A third copy of the questionnaire was fulfilled by the patients who been operated of their hip problems and were evaluated 6 months after the initial assessment. The WOMAC was used to test construct validity as it has been previously translated and validated in Spanish [13, 22]. This questionnaire evaluates pain, stiffness and function with five difficulty-based response options in patients with hip and/or knee OA . A lower score on the WOMAC indicated a better quality of life (vice versa in the iHOT questionnaire). Once the three subscales are added up, data was standardized to a range from 0 to 100 (being 0 the best health status and 100 the worst).
Feasibility, reliability, internal consistency, construct validity (correlation with WOMAC), ceiling and floor effects and sensitivity to change were assesses for the present study, in concordance with previous validation-related articles [6, 12, 14]. All statistical analysis was performed with SPSS statistical software version 21.0 (Chicago, IL, USA).
This parameter refers to the proportion of patients that did not answer any item, according to the preoperative visit. Feasibility was analyzed in the 97 questionnaires fulfilled in the first visit. The expected missing items proportions were similar to those obtained by previous validated translations of other questionnaires, as no feasibility was calculated for the original iHOT-33 questionnaire [14, 23, 24].
A 15-day test-retest reliability was applied to the present manuscript. Of the 97 patients that fulfilled the initial translated version of iHOT-33. 73 sent back copies fulfilled 15 days after the initial evaluation.
Test-retest reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (two-way random effects model)  as well as standard error of measurement (SEM) and represented using a Bland-Altman plot. According to the previously published by Mohtadi et al. , ICC scores were expected to be >0.78. In order to assess results, the minimal value considered acceptable for ICC was 0.78. Minimal detectable change (MDC) responded to the following formula: MDC = SEM × 1.4142 × 1.9 . This expresses the degree of change required in an individual’s score in order to consider it as ‘real’ and not due to measurement errors.
Cronbach’s α is used to measure internal consistency and a questionnaire is usually considered as consistent when α >0.8 . Internal consistency was analyzed in the 97 questionnaires fulfilled in the first visit.
Defined as the degree to which an instrument measures the characteristic being investigated. This was measured comparing the results obtained in the 97 questionnaires fulfilled in the first visit in both scales iHOT-33 and WOMAC [13, 22]. Construct validity was assessed with a correlation analysis between both scales using the Spearman’s Rho. A threshold of r > 0.5 is considered acceptable suggesting moderate to high correlation . WOMAC values were first reversed as these two scales are orientated in opposite directions in order to obtain positive values.
Ceiling and floor effects
The ceiling effect refers to the percentage of patients with maximum score within the questionnaire, indicating the best clinical outcome. On the other hand, the floor effect accounts for the proportion of patients with a minimum score, showing the worst clinical outcome. Ceiling and floor effects can be worked out as percentage of patients with maximum or minimum scores, respectively, or either with the maximum score (97 points in this case) minus the minimal detectable change (MDC) and worst score (0 points) plus the MDC, respectively. Within the present manuscript, both methods were used to describe these effects.
Sensitivity to change
All 97 patients were available for evaluation with the questionnaire after surgery and 6 months after the initial evaluation. The differences in mean scores before and after surgery at 6 months postoperative, using paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-ranked test using an analysis for homogeneous samples with homogeneous expected change . The ability of an instrument to detect change is quantified dividing the mean change by the standard deviation in change: the standardized response mean (SRM) . SRM values of 0.20, 0.50 and 0.80 represent small, moderate and large sensitivity to change, respectively . Effect size (Cohen’s d) was also assessed to evaluate the extent of change and to allow comparison between questionnaires; it is calculated as the difference between the mean preoperative and postoperative scores, divided by the standard deviation of the preoperative scores. An effect size of 1.0 equals a change of one standard deviation in the sample . As there is no external standard against which to measure functional capacity we employed an analysis for homogeneous samples with homogeneous expected change. The statistical coefficients used were based on group-level effect sizes, including the mean response (SRM: mean change/standard deviation for change).
A total of 37 women and 60 men with a mean age was 43.8 years old (SD 10.9, range 22 to 60 years) were included in the study (three patients lost during follow-up from the initial 100 included). The patients had the following clinical diagnosis: FAI (78; 65 combined impingement, 11 Cam-type lesions, 2 Pincer-type lesions), OA (10), gluteous medius pathology (3), Perthes sequelae (2), slipped capital femoral epiphysiolysis sequelae (2), psoas tendinitis (1), developmental dysplasia of the hip (1), and osteonecrosis (1).
No major problems were observed during forward and back-translation of iHOT-33 with language or grammatical errors. Small discrepancies rose for many synonyms but were easily agreed during revision. Pre-testing of version 0.2 revealed no further complications or comprehension issues and was thus upgraded to version 1.0.
Feasibility of the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33); number of missing items registered within our questionnaires
0 missing items
1 missing item
2 missing items
3 or more missing items
Symptoms and functional limitations (questions 1–16)
Sports and recreational activities (qq. 17–22)
Job related concerns (qq 23–26)
Social, emotional and lifestyle concerns (qq 27–33)
Mean scores at the 15-day test-retest questionnaires
Mean score test
Mean score 15-day retest
Cronbach’s α for the global questionnaire was 0.98, confirming a high internal consistency. Furthermore, Cronbach’s α was scored for the different subscales: 0.97 for Functional subscale, 0.94 Sports subscale, 0.89 Job subscale, and 0.94 Social and lifestyle subscale.
Construct validity showing the correlations between International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) and WOMAC questionnaires
Ceiling and floor effects
Taking into account the MDC, ceiling effect was observed in 12.1 % of patients whereas floor effect accounted for 21.6 % of patients. When only the best (100 points) and worst (0 point) scores were considered, 2 patients were found with floor effect and 0 ceiling effect.
Sensitivity to change
SRM score was 1.18, showing large sensitivity to change. Cohen’s d (pooled variance) was 1.46.
The present study aimed to translate and validate the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) to Spanish. Given the abovementioned results, a correct cross-cultural adaptation and posterior validation has been proven, showing that the iHOT-33 questionnaire can be used in Spanish-speaking countries.
Health-related questionnaires are a means of quantifying a subjective experience, aiming to provide the professional with patients’ satisfaction and quality of life information following surgical or nonsurgical treatments. The WOMAC questionnaire was the only validated and hip-specific questionnaire in Spanish available for surgeons treating younger active patients with hip problems in Spanish speaking countries , whereas English-speaking countries enjoy of more validated questionnaires and scores. This study has allowed for the development of such a tool.
Recently, our group has developed the Spanish translation and validation of the Hip Outcome Score (HOS); a hip-specific questionnaire designed for evaluating outcomes following hip arthroscopy . In contrast to the iHOT-33, the HOS questionnaire was designed to measure functional or sport physical limitations but did not include either emotional, social or lifestyle dimensions, nor dies it assess the impact of the patients’ problems on their jobs . When compared to the Spanish validation of the HOS both had similar reliability, internal consistency, sensibility to change and construct validity  but the multidimensional nature of the iHOT-33 might make it more valuable in assessing these patients.
The questionnaire’s feasibility was generally good, however, only 41.2 % of patients fulfilled the entire questionnaire. When analysed separately, the subscale with more questions answered was the Symptoms and functional limitations; only 3 patients left one question blank. On the other hand, 24 patients had one unanswered question within the Job subscale and 13 had three or more. This can be explained in part by the high unemployment observed in Spain during the development of the present study, and by the reluctance of patients to express their more social and emotional concerns, whereas the functional outcomes subscale is a more direct-answer, pathology-related questions. In the present validation, the questions with more missing items were number 23 (How much trouble do you have pushing, pulling, lifting or carrying heavy objects at work?) and 32 (How concerned are you about picking up or carrying children because of your hip?). This is related to the number of patients that do not perform these activities. In further studies, the iHOT-12 would warrant these answers, as this shorter questionnaire requires the patients to answer all questions, imagining how would their hip feel even though they have not performed that activity .
The questionnaire showed an excellent reliability with ICC scores over 0.90 in all subscales including the overall score, in line with the original ICC scores published by Mohtadi et al., as for Cronbach’s α, showing high internal consistency . Excellent correlation was obtained between the iHOT-33 and the WOMAC, especially within the Functional outcomes subscale. The original validation compared the iHOT-33 to the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), observing very good correlation .
Regarding the ceiling and floor effects; only 0 and 2, respectively, were observed in the present study, whereas the original validation did not find any .
Several limitations should be taken into consideration with respect to this study. First, the present questionnaire has a shorter form (iHOT-12), which has shown to be reliable, valid and responsive to change . The present translation only took the original iHOT-33 for validation, despite the short form could also be useful for preoperative visit and follow-ups. However, the decision was made to translate the original in order to start from the very beginning. Further studies could be addressed to this short form.
Secondly, despite the present study was a multicenter, all hospitals involved were located in Spain. Thus, some words of the translated version should be reviewed when administering the questionnaire in other Spanish-speaking countries. Despite having an official organization that regulates the Spanish language (Real Academia Española), local colloquialisms are extraordinarily frequent due to the extensive geographic distribution of the Spanish language and the high number of available words.
Furthermore, only four Spanish hospitals were included in the collection of data. However, the different clinical scenarios of the hospitals involved (combining private practice, cosmopolitan public hospitals and smaller regional hospital, as well as populations form both urban or rural areas) guarantees a well-distributed inclusion criteria in order to avoid socioeconomic or cultural bias.
Last, a greater number of patients could have been collected for the present study, however, the number of patients collected for this validation is clearly in line with other validation attempts in hip pathology previously published and the original validation of the iHOT-33 [14, 24].
In conclusion, this translated and validated Spanish version of the iHOT-33 has a valid construction; it has also high reliability, feasibility and has a large sensitivity to change with significant internal consistency in patients with hip disability. This validation of the iHOT-33 allows health care professionals to evaluate results between Spanish-speaking.
- Blankenbaker DG, De Smet AA. Hip injuries in athletes. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010;48(6):1155–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Armfield DR, Towers JD, Robertson DD. Radiographic and MR imaging of the athletic hip. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(2):211–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Frank JS, Gambacorta PL, Eisner EA. Hip pathology in the adolescent athlete. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(11):665–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Harris W. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51(4):737–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15(12):1833–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mohtadi NGH, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME, Chan D, Safran MR, Parsons N, et al. The development and validation of a self-administered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic hip disease: the international Hip outcome tool (iHOT-33). Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):595–605.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thorborg K, Roos EM, Bartels EM, Petersen J, Hölmich P. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported outcome questionnaires when assessing hip and groin disability: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(16):1186–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tijssen M, van Cingel R, van Melick N, de Visser E. No patient-reported outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:117.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kemp J, Collins N, Makdissi M, Schache A, Machotka Z, Crossley K. Hip arthroscopy for intra-articular pathology: a systematic review of outcomes with and without femoral osteoplasty. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(9):632–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Harris-Hayes M, McDonough C, Leunig M, Lee C, Callaghan J, Roos E. Clinical outcomes assessment in clinical trials to assess treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: Use of patient- reported outcome measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21 Suppl 1:S39–46.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Alonso J, Prieto L, Antó JM. The spanish version of the SF-36 health survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc). 1995;104(20):771–6.Google Scholar
- Ares O, Castellet E, Maculé F, León V, Montañez E, Freire A, et al. Translation and validation of “the knee society clinical rating system” into spanish. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(11):2618–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Batlle-Gualda E, Esteve-Vives J, Piera Riera M, Hargreaves R, Cutts J. Translation and validation to Spanish of the WOMAC questionnaire specific for knee and hip osteoarthritis. Rev Esp Reumatol. 1999;26(2):38–45.Google Scholar
- Seijas R, Sallent A, Ruiz-Ibán MA, Ares O, Marín-Peña O, Cuéllar R, et al. Validation of the Spanish version of the Hip outcome score: a multicenter study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:70.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Polesello GC, Godoy GF, de Trindade CAC, de Queiroz MC, Honda E, Ono NK. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the international Hip outcome tool (iHOT) into Portuguese. Acta Ortop Bras. 2012;20(2):88–92B.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mohtadi N. Development and validation of the quality of life outcome measure (questionnaire) for chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. Am J Sports Med. 26(3):350–9.Google Scholar
- Kirkley A, Alvarez C, Griffin S. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for disorders of the rotator cuff: the Western Ontario rotator cuff index. Clin J Sport Med. 2003;13(2):84–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol. 1995;24(2):61–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94–104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Azkárate J, Güenaga JI. Validation of the spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index. Clin Rheumatol. 2002;21(6):466–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Castellet E, Ares O, Celaya F, Valentí-Azcárate A, Salvador A, Torres A, et al. Transcultural adaptation and validation of the “Hip and Knee” questionnaire into Spanish. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:76.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Miozzari HH, Mannion AF, Leunig M. The German Hip outcome score: validation in patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(3):339–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1033–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gobbo M, Esteve-Vives J, Rivera J, Vallejo MÁ, Lopez-González R. Fibromyalgia health assessment questionnaire: sensitivity to change. Reumatol Clin. 2012;8(4):174–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stratford PW, Riddle DL. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:23.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:178–89.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Griffin DR, Parsons N, Mohtadi NGH, Safran MR. A short version of the international Hip outcome tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):611–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.