Indonesian Version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport After Injury Questionnaire Through Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability Testing

Muammar Ihsan, Ari Wibawa, I. Muliarta, Ni Wayan Tianing
{"title":"Indonesian Version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport After Injury Questionnaire Through Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability Testing","authors":"Muammar Ihsan, Ari Wibawa, I. Muliarta, Ni Wayan Tianing","doi":"10.51559/ptji.v3i1.47","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study aimed to produce the Indonesian version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) questionnaire and determine the value of content validity, construct validity, known-groups validity, and internal consistency reliability. \nMethods: First, the ACL-RSI questionnaire was translated through a cross-cultural adaptation process. Six experts in related fields assessed the adapted questionnaire by giving scores on four criteria: relevance, clarity, simplicity, and ambiguity, which will be calculated into content validity value. Seventy-one participants who experienced ACL injury because of sporting activities and had undergone reconstruction who joined the online community for Knee Injury Patients Support Group filled out the ACL-RSI to determine the known-groups validity and internal consistency reliability. The participants also filled out the Indonesian version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) as a comparison to test construct validity. \nResults: The calculated content validity value obtained from the experts’ scoring was S-CVI/Ave = 0.97. Construct validity between ACL-RSI and all KOOS subscales showed a strong positive correlation with r = 0.78-0.87. Two hypotheses for known-groups validity were proven, with the group that had returned to their specific sport having a better ACL-RSI score than the group that had not returned (70.2 ± 10.0 vs. 49.3 ± 18.8, p<0.001), and the group planned to return to their specific sport as before the injury had a better ACL-RSI score than the group who did not intend to return (60.3 ± 16.5 vs. 32.6 ± 2.4, p<0.001). Internal consistency ACL-RSI showed very good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96. \nConclusions: The Indonesian version of ACL-RSI is valid and reliable for evaluating psychological readiness to return to sports after ACL reconstruction. However, a seemingly further similar study is necessary to fix the weaknesses in this study to produce a more representative Indonesian version of the ACL-RSI questionnaire.","PeriodicalId":211799,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy Journal of Indonesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy Journal of Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51559/ptji.v3i1.47","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to produce the Indonesian version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) questionnaire and determine the value of content validity, construct validity, known-groups validity, and internal consistency reliability. Methods: First, the ACL-RSI questionnaire was translated through a cross-cultural adaptation process. Six experts in related fields assessed the adapted questionnaire by giving scores on four criteria: relevance, clarity, simplicity, and ambiguity, which will be calculated into content validity value. Seventy-one participants who experienced ACL injury because of sporting activities and had undergone reconstruction who joined the online community for Knee Injury Patients Support Group filled out the ACL-RSI to determine the known-groups validity and internal consistency reliability. The participants also filled out the Indonesian version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) as a comparison to test construct validity. Results: The calculated content validity value obtained from the experts’ scoring was S-CVI/Ave = 0.97. Construct validity between ACL-RSI and all KOOS subscales showed a strong positive correlation with r = 0.78-0.87. Two hypotheses for known-groups validity were proven, with the group that had returned to their specific sport having a better ACL-RSI score than the group that had not returned (70.2 ± 10.0 vs. 49.3 ± 18.8, p<0.001), and the group planned to return to their specific sport as before the injury had a better ACL-RSI score than the group who did not intend to return (60.3 ± 16.5 vs. 32.6 ± 2.4, p<0.001). Internal consistency ACL-RSI showed very good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96. Conclusions: The Indonesian version of ACL-RSI is valid and reliable for evaluating psychological readiness to return to sports after ACL reconstruction. However, a seemingly further similar study is necessary to fix the weaknesses in this study to produce a more representative Indonesian version of the ACL-RSI questionnaire.
印尼版本的前十字韧带损伤后恢复运动问卷,通过跨文化适应,效度和信度测试
背景:本研究拟编制印尼版前十字韧带损伤后恢复运动(ACL-RSI)问卷,并测定其内容效度、结构效度、已知组效度和内部一致性信度。方法:首先,通过跨文化适应过程对ACL-RSI问卷进行翻译。6名相关领域的专家对改编后的问卷进行了评估,并对相关性、清晰度、简洁性和模糊性4个标准给出了分数,这些分数将被计算为内容效度值。71名因运动经历过前交叉韧带损伤并进行过重建的参与者加入了膝关节损伤患者支持小组的在线社区,他们填写了ACL- rsi,以确定已知组的效度和内部一致性信度。参与者还填写了印尼版本的膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分(oos),作为测试结构效度的比较。结果:专家评分计算出的内容效度值为S-CVI/Ave = 0.97。ACL-RSI与kos各子量表的结构效度呈显著正相关,r = 0.78 ~ 0.87。已知组有效性的两个假设被证明,恢复特定运动的组的ACL-RSI评分高于未恢复的组(70.2±10.0比49.3±18.8,p<0.001),计划恢复损伤前特定运动的组的ACL-RSI评分高于不打算恢复的组(60.3±16.5比32.6±2.4,p<0.001)。内部一致性ACL-RSI具有很好的信度,Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96。结论:印尼版本的ACL- rsi是评估前交叉韧带重建后重返运动的心理准备的有效和可靠的。然而,似乎需要进一步类似的研究来修正本研究的弱点,以产生更具代表性的印度尼西亚版本的ACL-RSI问卷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信