Skip to main content
Log in

Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper was to examine if pain and functioning can be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in a meaningful way. This was done by (1) conducting exploratory factor analysis to explore the factorial structure of the OKS and (2) conducting confirmatory factor analysis to examine whether a two-factor solution is superior to a one-factor solution.

Methods

Secondary data analysis of four independent datasets containing OKS scores on 161,973 patients was performed. Four independent datasets contained data on: (1) 156, 788 patients from the NHS HES/PROMS dataset, (2) 2,405 consecutive patients from the South West London Elective Operating Centre, (3) 2,353 patients enrolled in the Knee Arthroplasty Trial and (4) 427 consecutive patients listed for knee replacement surgery at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford.

Results

Factor extraction methods suggested that, depending on the method employed, both one- and two-factor solutions are meaningful. Overall and in each data set some cross-loading occurred and item loadings were consistent across two factors. On confirmatory factor analysis, both one- and two-factor models had acceptable fit indices. This allowed the creation of the ‘OKS pain component’ and the ‘OKS functional component’ subscales.

Conclusions

Factor analysis confirmed the original conceptual basis of the OKS but offered an option to perform additional analyses using pain and functional subscales. Further research should focus on providing further evidence on construct validity and responsiveness of the newly derived subscales.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Full reports on known issues about data quality for HES datasets are available online [14].

References

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (February, 2012). Facts and figures. Statistics on hospital-based care in the United States, 2009. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/factsandfigures/2009/exhibit3_1.jsp. Accessed 11 June 2012.

  2. National Joint Registry for England and Wales (2011). 8th annual report. Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK.

  3. Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Murray, D., & Carr, A. (1998). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 80(1), 63–69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Devlin, N. J., & Appleby, J. (2010). Getting the most out of PROMs. London: King’s Fund, Office of Health Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gooberman-Hill, R., Woolhead, G., MacKichan, F., Ayis, S., Williams, S., & Dieppe, P. (2007). Assessing chronic joint pain: Lessons from a focus group study. Arthritis Care & Research, 57(4), 666–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Heuts, P. H. T. G., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., Roelofs, J., de Bie, R. A., Aretz, K., van Weel, C., et al. (2004). Pain-related fear and daily functioning in patients with osteoarthritis. Pain, 110(1–2), 228–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, M., Churchman, D., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Claysonm, D. (2010). User manual for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Isis Innovation Limited.

  9. Conaghan, P. G., Emerton, M., & Tennant, A. (2007). Internal construct validity of the Oxford Knee Scale: Evidence from Rasch measurement. Arthritis Care & Research, 57(8), 1363–1367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Baker, P., Van der Meulen, J., Lewsey, J., & Gregg, P. (2007). The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement: Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 89(7), 893.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Harcourt, W., White, S., & Jones, P. (2001). Specificity of the Oxford knee status questionnaire. The effect of disease of the hip or lumbar spine on patients’ perception of knee disability. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 83(3), 345.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Scott, C., Howie, C., MacDonald, D., & Biant, L. (2010). Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-British Volume, 92(9), 1253.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. The Health and Social Care Information Centre Annual publication data quality notes library. Available at: http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=1189. Accessed 26 March 2012.

  15. Murray, D., Fitzpatrick, R., Rogers, K., Pandit, H., Beard, D., Carr, A., et al. (2007). The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-British Volume, 89(8), 1010.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.

  17. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Olsson, U. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 44(4), 443–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Norman, G. R., & Streiner, D. L. (2008). Biostatistics: The bare essentials. PMPH USA Ltd.

  21. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and psychological measurement, 20, 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. David, L. S. (1998). Factors affecting reliability of interpretations of scree plots. Psychological Reports, 83(2), 687–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. O’connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, 32(3), 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In: Problems and solutions in human assessment 2000 (pp. 41–71). USA: Springer.

  33. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Maruyama, G. (1998). Basics of structural equation modelling. California: Thousand Oaks.

  35. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models, 154, 136–162.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E. (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach. USA: RAND Corporation.

  38. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Boersma, K., & Linton, S. J. (2005). How does persistent pain develop? An analysis of the relationship between psychological variables, pain and function across stages of chronicity. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(11), 1495–1507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dekker, J., Van Dijk, G. M., & Veenhof, C. (2009). Risk factors for functional decline in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 21(5), 520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Press.

  42. Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modelling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(1), 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A copy of the OKS questionnaire and permission to use this measure can be acquired from Isis Innovation Ltd, the technology transfer company of the University of Oxford via website: http://www.isis-innovation.com/outcomes/index.html or email: healthoutcomes@isis.ox.ac.uk. Authors at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences thank the NIHR Biomedical Research Unit for its support. The KAT dataset was reused with the permission of the KAT Project Management Group.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina Harris.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harris, K., Dawson, J., Doll, H. et al. Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Qual Life Res 22, 2561–2568 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0393-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0393-x

Keywords

Navigation