Scribd
Upload
32 views2 pages

OKS Scoring Guide - 2018 05 09

OKS-scoring-guide

Uploaded by

Bitone Alva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
32 views2 pages

OKS Scoring Guide - 2018 05 09

OKS-scoring-guide

Uploaded by

Bitone Alva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The Oxford knee score

A Guide to the (New) Scoring System

When the Oxford knee score was originally devised, the scoring system was designed to be as simple as
possible, for clinical researchers inexperienced in using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Thus, in the
original publication (Dawson et al 1998) each question was scored from 1 to 5, with 1 representing best
outcome/least symptoms. Scores from each question were added so the overall score was from 12 to 60 with
12 being the best outcome. Since then, following feedback from surgeons regarding considerable confusion
in the literature, the scoring system was changed (more detail is described in Murray, D. W. et al 2007).
We have since recommend the following method of scoring be used by everyone for the single,
composite scale:
Score each question from 0 to 4 with 4 being the best outcome. This method, when summed, produces
overall scores running from 0 to 48 with 48 being the best outcome (to convert from the ‘old’ 60–12 system
to this new 0-48 system and vice versa subtract the score from 60).
To further avoid confusion, always state clearly the method that has been used (including in
abstracts).

Recommended system of scoring (more detail)


Each of the 12 questions on the Oxford knee score is scored in the same way with the score decreasing as the
reported symptoms increase (ie. become worse). All questions are laid out similarly with response categories
denoting least (or no) symptoms being to the left of the page (scoring 4) and those representing greatest
severity lying on the right hand side (scoring 0). eg. question 1:

1. During the past 4 weeks........


How would you describe the pain you usually had from your knee?
None Very mild Mild Moderate Severe
q q q q q
4 3 2 1 0

The overall score is reached by simply summing the scores received for individual questions. This results in
a continuous score ranging from 0 (most severe symptoms) to 48 (least symptoms).

Missing values/notes for analysis.


We have proposed that, if, after repeated attempts to obtain complete data from an individual, only one or
two questions have been left unanswered, it is reasonable to enter the mean value representing all of their
other responses, to fill the gaps 1. If more than two questions are unanswered, we have recommended that an
overall score should not be calculated. Note that this approach to maximise the amount of usable data, was
originally conceived as an arbitrary/pragmatic instruction to individuals collecting data – usually on a
relatively small-scale. Clearly the more questions that are unanswered, the less reliable/valid is an imputation
based on other given responses. There are more sophisticated statistical methods for dealing with missing
responses, (for instance, one example has been reported by Jenkinson et al (2006)), which generally require
the involvement of an appropriate statistician. If the nature of the study/analysis is to investigate
measurement properties of a scale, imputation is not permitted when there are any missing item responses.
If patients indicate two answers for one question, we recommend that the convention of using the worst
(most severe) response is adopted (during data entry).

1
?
As a matter of good research practice, in order to minimise the risk of introducing errors, if this method of imputation is
adopted, a missing value should be used when data are entered, with imputed values only produced using a single
computerised operation (and on a copy of the original dataset) during the data preparation stage i.e. imputation should not
occur at the data entry stage.

Oxford Knee Score Scoring Guide © Oxford University Innovation Limited, 2018
Scoring separate Pain and Function subscales (see Harris et al 2013)
In each case, the recommended scoring for the subscales is from 0 (worst) to 100 (best).

The OKS Pain domain/subscale comprises 7 questionnaire items: 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.


Each item is initially scored in the usual way: from 0 to 4 with 4 being the best outcome
At the time of data analysis, a raw score is first computed by summing respondents’ response scores to each
of these 7 items. This will produce a range of possible raw scores between 0 and 28.
To convert the raw score to the recommended 0-100 metric:
100/maximum possible domain score X actual (raw) score i.e. 100/28 X raw score.

Example: in response to items 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, a respondent scores 2,3,3,4,2,3,2 respectively.


2 +3 +3 +4+2+3+2 = a raw score of 19.
Convert to 0-100 metric:
100/28=3.57
3.57 X 19 =67.8

The OKS Function domain/subscale comprises 5 items: 2, 3, 7, 11, and 12.


In the same way as the Pain subscale, each item is initially scored in the usual way: from 0 to 4 with 4 being
the best outcome.
At the time of data analysis, a raw score is first computed by summing respondents’ response scores to each
of these 5 items. This will produce a range of possible raw scores between 0 and 20.
To convert the raw score to the recommended 0-100 metric:
100/maximum possible domain score X actual (raw) score i.e. 100/20 X raw score.

Example: in response to items 2, 3, 7, 11, and 12, a respondent scores 1,0,1,2,0 respectively.
1 +0 +1 +2+0= a raw score of 4.
Convert to 0-100 metric:
100/20=5.0
5.0 X 4 =20.0

Missing values
See previous notes on missing values. If the intention is to score a subscale (i.e. the Pain and/or Function
subscale) as a further pragmatic suggestion, if only one item per subscale is missing, the method of imputing
a value using the mean value of other responses for that subscale could be adopted.

Important!
For those who make use of both the Oxford Hip Score and the Oxford Knee Score, note that each
questionnaire contains some quite similar items, but others are different. The scoring system to produce
subscales for the Oxford Knee Score also differs from the method used for the Oxford Hip Score. Please refer
to the separate scoring guide produced for the Oxford Hip Score.

Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Murray D., Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee
replacement surgery. J. Bone Joint Surg 1998; 80-B:63-69)

Murray DW1, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and
knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Aug;89(8):1010-4.

Jenkinson C, Heffernan C, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R. The Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): evidence for
a method of imputing missing data. Age Ageing 2006;35-5:497-502.

Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Field RE, Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Price AJ, Beard DJ. Can pain and
function be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis. Qual Life Res. 2013 Nov;22(9):2561-8. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0393-x. Epub 2013 Mar 23.

Oxford Knee Score Scoring Guide © Oxford University Innovation Limited, 2018

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy