Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET)
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET)
Do you wish to request the book?
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET)
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET)
2015
Overview
Purpose
The Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) is a questionnaire designed to evaluate quality of life related to the health (HRQOL) of patients with meniscus pathology. The purpose of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the WOMET into Turkish, and thereby to determine the reliability and validity of the translated version.
Methods
The WOMET was translated into Turkish in accordance with the stages recommended by Guillemin. Ninety-six patients [35 male, 61 female; mean age: 43.6 ± 11.7 (23–71) years] with meniscal pathology were included in the study. The WOMET was completed twice at 3–7-day intervals. The inter-rater correlation coefficient was used for reliability, and Cronbach’s
α
was used for internal consistency. Patients were asked to answer the Lysholm knee scale and the short form-36 (SF-36) for the validity of the estimation. The distribution of ceiling and floor effects was determined.
Results
Mean and
s
tandard deviation of the first and second evaluations of the total WOMET were 1,048.9 ± 271.6 and 1,000.4 ± 255.2 (
p
= 0.03), respectively. The test–retest reliability of the total score, physical function, sports/work/lifestyle and emotion domains were 0.88, 0.78, 0.80 and 0.85, respectively. Cronbach’s
α
was 0.89. WOMET was most strongly related to the physical function scale and the physical component score (
ρ
0.54,
ρ
0.60, respectively;
p
< 0.001). The weakest correlations between the WOMET and the SF-36 were for the mental component score and the emotional role functioning (
ρ
0.11,
ρ
0.03, respectively). We observed no ceiling and floor effects of the overall WOMET score, but 36.5 % of the patients showed floor effect in the question of “numbness”, and 40.6 % of the patients showed ceiling effect in the question of “consciousness”.
Conclusion
The Turkish version of the WOMET is valid and reliable. It can therefore be used for HRQOL of patients with meniscal pathology.
Level of evidence
II.
