The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:446-447.
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Allen F. Anderson, MD and
James J. Irrgang, PhD, PT, ATC
Corresponding author: Allen F. Anderson, MD The Lipscomb Clinic
4230 Harding Road, #1000 Nashville, TN 37205
andersonaf@tnortho.com
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
To The Editor:
We were concerned by the general tenor and inaccuracy of the editorial
"Are Validated Questionnaires Valid?"
(2005;87:1671-2), by Dr.
Zarins. The editorial ostensibly sanctions a return to historical methods of
outcome assessment that primarily focused on the structure of the knee joint,
not the function of the patient. Unfortunately, this unscientific approach of
evaluating outcomes based on impairment measures and reporting results derived
from knee evaluation forms that were neither valid nor comparable often
resulted in erroneous conclusions by orthopaedic researchers. The editorial
fails to acknowledge that patient-reported "'outcome measures' are now
in vogue" because critical analysis of the orthopaedic literature
demonstrated a number of deficiencies that call into question our fundamental
basis of learning.
We disagree with the implication that validation is of questionable value
because "there is no accepted standard of what constitutes
validation" and, consequently, it is "self-proclaimed."
. . . [Full Text of this Article]
Related articles in JBJS:
- Are Validated Questionnaires Valid?
- Bertram Zarins
JBJS 2005 87: 1671-1672.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
|