Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys
Version of Record online: 1 JAN 2006
Copyright © 2002 Orthopaedic Research Society
Journal of Orthopaedic Research
Volume 20, Issue 6, pages 1146–1151, November 2002
How to Cite
Saleh, K. J., Radosevich, D. M., Kassim, R. A., Moussa, M., Dykes, D., Bottolfson, H., Gioe, T. J. and Robinson, H. (2002), Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys. J. Orthop. Res., 20: 1146–1151. doi: 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00059-1
- Issue online: 1 JAN 2006
- Version of Record online: 1 JAN 2006
- Manuscript Accepted: 26 MAR 2002
- Manuscript Received: 21 DEC 2001
- Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation
- 1WOMAC osteoarthritis index: a users guide. London: University of western Ontario; 1995.
- 2Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes following hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheum 1988; 1: 95–108., , .
- 3Patient-reported health status in total joint replacement. J Arthrop 1999; 14: 576–80., .
- 4Patient experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1998; 7(6): 513–9., , .
- 5Electronic quality of life questionnaires: a comparison of pen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 21–6., , , , .
- 6Clinical epidemiology. The architecture of clinical research. Part 2: outline of statistical strategies. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1985..
- 7Measuring health related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118(8): 622–9., , .
- 8Health related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 1998; 80: 163..
- 9Equivalency of microtest computer and conventional MMPI administration: a critical review. Clin Psychol Rev 1988; 8: 561–77..
- 10Equivalency of micro test computer MMPI administration for standard and special scales. Comput Hum Behav 1988; 4: 323–37., , .
- 11Understanding health care outcomes research. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishing Inc.; 1997. p. 5–22.
- 12What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 331: 221–5., , .
- 13Evaluation health-related quality of life: Cost comparison of computerized touch-screen technology and traditional paper systems. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20(11): 1390–5., , .
- 14Comparison of the musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire with the short form-36, the western ontario and macmaster universities osteoarthritis index, and the sickness impact profile health status measures. J Bone Joint Surg 1997; 79(9): 1323–35., , , .
- 15Comparative outcomes of total joint arthroplasty. J Arthrop 1995; 10: 737–41., , .
- 16CAN patient use an automated questionnaire to define their current health status? Medical Care 1992; 30(Suppl 5): ms74–84., , , , .
- 17The medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey (SF36) conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473–83..
- 18WareJ, editor. Reliability precision and data quality in SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Nimrod Press: Boston; 1993., , . In: