Development and content validation of a questionnaire identifying patients’ functional priorities and abilities after hip or knee arthroplasty
================================================================================================================================================

* Motahareh Karimijashni
* Marie Westby
* Tim Ramsay
* Paul E. Beaulé
* Stéphane Poitras

## Abstract

**Background** To develop a self-report questionnaire evaluating functional priorities after hip or knee arthroplasty and evaluate patients’ understanding of its items and conceptual relevance.

**Methods** A self-report questionnaire was first developed based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) core set for osteoarthritis (OA). In the second stage, two research physiotherapists thoroughly reviewed and refined the questionnaire, and another physiotherapist conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 18 patients to assess the face and content validity of the questionnaire.

**Results** All categories and corresponding activities of ICF core set for OA were used to develop the questionnaire. Several questionnaire issues were identified and addressed. Most challenges were related to comprehension, followed by item ordering and visual elements. Patients identified ambiguous wording which we subsequently simplified. Ten activities of the core set were excluded due to lack of face validity, two activities were added, and four activities were modified.

**Conclusion and implication** The findings suggest that the ICF core set for OA needs to be adjusted for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty and highlight the feasibility of applying a modified core set to assess functional priorities after hip or knee arthroplasty.

Keywords
*   knee and hip arthroplasty
*   functional priorities
*   content validity
*   questionnaire development

## Introduction

Healthcare systems are moving toward patient-centered services by focusing on patient priorities, which are health outcome goals based on what matters most to patients.1–3 Patients can contribute to better healthcare quality by sharing their goals and experiences with healthcare providers.4 To establish patient-centered management priorities, healthcare providers must understand patient needs and expectations.5 Healthcare services tailored to meet patient goals have been demonstrated to enhance outcomes and patient satisfaction while reducing healthcare costs.6,7

Hip or knee arthroplasty is an effective procedure for advanced osteoarthritis (OA), with a majority of patients experiencing improved pain, function and health-related quality of life outcomes.8 However, there is evidence that 10 to 30% of patients report suboptimal outcomes after hip or knee arthroplasty.9,10 Reasons for these poorer outcomes after hip or knee arthroplasty remain unclear.11 To define poor outcomes, it is important to understand which aspects of outcomes are important to patients. This knowledge will assist clinicians in identifying patients with suboptimal outcomes, leading to tailored rehabilitation intervention which in turn, contribute to the optimization of results after arthroplasty. Existing outcome measures can be assessed against postoperative patient priorities to determine if they are patient-centered, guiding clinicians to select appropriate measures and assess postoperative outcomes that are important for patients.

Despite the thorough exploration of patients’ expectations and goals before arthroplasty 12–15 and their role in the surgical decision-making process,12,13 this preoperative data is insufficient for postoperative decision-making. Postoperative information is essential as patients may reassess their goals and expectations after arthroplasty due to the changes in their functional status and perception of health.16,17 Many patients have very optimistic preoperative expectations regarding surgery results, potentially leading to unmet expectations and subsequent dissatisfaction.15,18 Additionally, only considering preoperative patient expectations makes it challenging to define goals at different time points during the postoperative period.12,13

Thus, there is a need to explore postoperative patient priorities after hip or knee arthroplasty, yet limited information exists on this subject. Although few studies19,20,20 have identified some aspects of functional priorities at specific postoperative time points, a comprehensive evaluation of patients’ priorities throughout the entire postoperative recovery period is lacking. To address this gap, an instrument is first needed to provide a more detailed insight into patients’ perspectives after surgery. The current study aimed to develop a patient questionnaire to assess functional priorities after hip and knee arthroplasty and evaluate its face and content validity.

## Method

This research was designed following the steps proposed by Burns et al.21 and Passmore et al.22 and consists of three phases: 1) developing the questionnaire, 2) assessing the face and content validity of the questionnaire,23 and 3) pilot testing the draft questionnaire. Figure 1 shows a flow diagram of the methodology for this study. This study was approved by Ottawa Health Sciences Network Research Ethics Board (20230252-01H), and the University of Ottawa Board of Ethics (H-06-23-9425).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/22/2024.03.20.24304636/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/22/2024.03.20.24304636/F1)

Figure 1. Questionnaire development and cognitive validation

The development of the questionnaire consisted of three steps:

### Step one: Item generation

The aim of this step is to thoroughly explore potential domains for incorporation into the questionnaire. We selected the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) to generate the items in this questionnaire. The ICF is a comprehensive and integrated framework designed to assess the health and health-related states of diverse populations.24 Previous research has highlighted the usefulness of ICF as a framework and classification system in the development of more effective questionnaires.25 The ICF is organized into two distinct parts: (a) functioning and disability, and (b) contextual factors24 (figure 2). The expansive nature of the ICF poses a challenge to its practical application. To address this, lists of relevant categories tailored to certain conditions have been structured into core sets. The ICF core set for patients with OA was developed in 2004 and systematically identifies and categorizes key aspects of functioning and disability related to OA.26 It includes 13 chapters for body function (most of which related to the neuromusculoskeletal and movement related functions), 6 chapters for body structure (all of them from the structures related to movement), 19 chapters for activities and participation (mobility, self-care, domestic life, etc.), and 17 for environmental factors (products and technology, support and relationship, etc.). Within these chapters are second-level categories such as changing and maintaining a body position, lifting and carrying objects, walking, going up and down stairs, and moving around. Within each second-level category are third-level activities including lying down, squatting, kneeling, sitting, standing, etc. Figure 3 shows an example of the ICF hierarchically from the activity and participation component. This multifaceted approach provides in-depth insights into the diverse dimensions of daily activities. Only the activity and participation component of the ICF was selected for this questionnaire because enhancing functional outcomes is the main aim of rehabilitation of individuals with OA undergoing arthroplasty to assist them in optimizing their abilities to engage in daily activities at the individual and societal levels.26,27

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/22/2024.03.20.24304636/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/22/2024.03.20.24304636/F2)

Figure 2. Components of ICF framework.

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/22/2024.03.20.24304636/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/22/2024.03.20.24304636/F3)

Figure 3. An example of the ICF hierarchically from the activity and participation component.

The OA core set was used to generate items for the questionnaire since previous research has shown the potential clinical utility of this core set in the assessment of arthroplasty outcomes28. It encompasses the common range of functional issues faced during the recovery period following hip or knee arthroplasty enhancing the content validity of our questionnaire.27,28 Also, it has been validated from both physiotherapists and patient perspectives.57,60 The OA core set addresses second-level categories, but the survey included third-level activities to ensure a thorough exploration of the individual’s participation in diverse life activities using original ICF wording. It is worth noting that an ICF core set for total knee arthroplasty was recently developed,29 however patients were not involved in the development process.

### Step two: Questionnaire formatting

In this step, the questions and response options were formulated by the first author (MK) with the goal of ensuring conciseness, clarity and interpretability. Each activity is evaluated based on current importance and ability. Participants rate the importance of functional activities on a 4-point scale from “not important” to “very important” and ability to perform activities from “unable to do” to “no difficulty”. A 4-point scale (very important, important, slightly important, and not important)30 was used to limit neutrality and force respondents to make a clear directional choice and provide concrete opinions. This scale is also easier to understand, requires less effort to answer 31 and maximizes response rates.32 We included an image from the ICF illustration library for each activity to enhance comprehension by providing more precise information and facilitating ease in answering.33

### Step three: Questionnaire tool validation

#### Validating procedure

The questionnaire went through two stages to assess its face/content validity. First, two physiotherapist research team members (SP, MW) reviewed the questionnaire items and commented on the wording of the questions and determined whether the questions captured the objectives pursued.34 Second, a think-aloud process was applied with the intended users of the questionnaire, e.g. patients who had undergone hip or knee arthroplasty. This cognitive interview method assesses validity by investigating response processes.35 Patients are prompted to vocalize their thoughts by thinking aloud while answering questionnaire items, allowing them to verbalize thoughts that would typically remain silent during the process.36 The think-aloud method allows for investigating the challenges patients may encounter when completing the questionnaire, including issues with comprehension, retrieval, judgment, and responding. This approach aims to ensure the functionality, clarity and user-friendliness of the questionnaire and is thought to give a more realistic picture of the problems compared to more direct interview methods that may interrupt task completion.37 The interviewer remains silent so long as individuals continue to think aloud. Participants are consistently encouraged to keep thinking aloud if they stop verbalizing thoughts for more than ten seconds. They are not asked to explain or justify what they are doing nor to report their strategies.

#### Setting and participants

This study was conducted within the orthopedic department at The Ottawa Hospital in Ottawa, Canada, a large academic-affiliated institution situated in an urban setting with a high volume of arthroplasties. The inclusion criteria were adults (18 years or older) who underwent primary elective hip or knee arthroplasty due to OA, had surgery 1, 6, 13, or 26 weeks prior, and who spoke English. Recruitment timing was based on the typical post-arthroplasty recovery pattern.38,39 One week post-surgery captured acute recovery. Approximately six weeks post-surgery was selected for the first post-acute measurement as most adverse events usually occur within 30 days of surgery 40,41 and most patients can be considered stable six weeks after surgery. The assessments at 13 and 26 weeks were selected to capture the majority of overall functional recovery and reflect the typical timeframe of rehabilitation.42,43 Patients with a severe mental impairment, with hearing or speech impairment, and those unable to read were excluded.

#### Sampling and recruitment

We used a phone-based remote recruitment strategy to recruit the patients and purposive sampling. This sampling method allows the recruitment of participants across various criteria, including age, gender, surgery type, post-surgery timepoint. This approach leads to a more representative sample of the whole population and enhances comprehensiveness of the study.44,45 For this purpose, screening for potential patients was first performed via Electronic Health Record (EPIC) at the Ottawa Hospital which contains comprehensive information regarding patient’s medical history. After identifying eligible participants, we then manually reviewed charts for study confirmation. One researcher (MK) then phoned individuals with documented consent for research in their EPIC chart. Consent for this study was obtained verbally over the phone or in written format.

#### Data collection

Consenting participants attended a single, cognitive interview session. Think-aloud interviews were held in person or virtually using Microsoft Teams. All interviews were carried out by one interviewer (MK) who is an experienced physiotherapist and a PhD candidate in rehabilitation sciences. After explaining the think-aloud process, participants were asked whether they found the concepts and items of the questionnaire to be relevant, appropriate, and comprehensible in accordance with the questionnaire objectives. After each interview, participants were encouraged to share their general comments on the questionnaire. All sessions were audio-recorded using an encrypted digital audio recorder and subsequently transcribed for analysis. The interviewer collected the demographic data, including age, sex, gender, body mass index, surgery date, and time since surgery. Protection of privacy and confidentiality of participants was ensured by de-identifying data using their unique study IDs. All data, including master log, audio recordings, transcribed recordings, and consent forms were stored in a password-protected shared folder which could only be accessed by the research team. Data security was also ensured with physical safeguards by storing the hard copy of transcribed interviews and data analysis in a locked cabinet and research office in the orthopedic division at The Ottawa Hospital.

#### Sample Size

Recruitment of participants was continued until data saturation,46 when no new problems arose for two consecutive participants. For this purpose, the analysis of each transcript was carried out iteratively after its corresponding interview to monitor for data saturation.

#### Data analysis

Data was entered into IBM SPSS (version 28) to produce descriptive statistics of participant demographics. One researcher (MK) analyzed interview transcripts using the inductive content analysis approach (50) and regularly debriefed with other team researchers (SP, MW) to discuss problems raised and modify questionnaire items.49

## Results

We developed our questionnaire based on the ICF core set for OA, and validated it through two stages, including expert refinement, and cognitive think-aloud interview. See Appendix A for the final version of the questionnaire.

## Initial questionnaire development by the research team

All third-level activities of the OA core set were critically evaluated by research team members, including three experienced physiotherapists (SP, MW, MK), with some items being removed or revised when reaching a consensus (table 2).

### Removed items

Nine activities were removed: menstrual care (d5302) was excluded to ensure the questionnaire’s applicability to all genders; choosing appropriate clothing (d5404), maintaining head position (d4155), fine hand use (d440), hand and arm use (d445) since they do not involve lower extremities; carrying on the head (d4304), human-powered vehicles (d4700), using humans for transportation (d4703), driving animal-powered vehicles (d4752) since they are less applicable in developed countries (table 2).

### Revised items

Only the second-level categories of “toileting” (d530), “acquisition of goods and services” (d620), “doing housework” (d640), “assisting others” (d660), “intimate relationship” (d770), and “community life” (d970) were used as the details provided by the third level activities are less relevant for functional assessment after knee or hip arthroplasty.29 Since the abilities related to hobbies, play, crafts, arts and culture were similar, they were merged into the category “Hobbies/ play /Crafts/ Arts and culture”

“Lying down” (d4100) was split into lying down and getting up. “Center of gravity” was removed from “shifting the body’s center of gravity” (d4106) to simplify the term. To highlight the movement of the activity, “squatting” (d4101), “kneeling” (d4102), “sitting” (d4103) and “standing” (d4104) were modified to “squatting down”, “kneeling down”, “sitting on a chair” and “rising from a chair”, respectively. To improve clarity, “using private motorized transportation” (d4701), “using public motorized transportation”(d4702), “driving human-powered transportation” (d4750), and “driving motorized vehicles” (d4751) were changed to “getting in and out of a car”, “using public transportation”, “biking”, and “driving” respectively. Examples of “slope, uneven, or moving surfaces, such as grass, gravel and snow” and “such as walking around a marketplace or shop, around or through crowded areas” were added to “walking on different surfaces” (d4501), and “walking around obstacles” (d4503) from the ICF description. “Climbing” (4551) was divided into climbing, and going up and down stairs based on the updated 2018 version of the ICF.50 “Drying oneself” (d5102) was changed to drying your body and the explanation of “drying some part or parts of your body or the whole body, such as after washing” was added based on the ICF description. “Acquisition of goods and services” (620) was changed to shopping. The explanation of “cleaning the house, washing clothes, using household appliances, storing food and disposing of garbage” and “assisting others with their learning, communicating, self-care, and movement, within the house or outside” were added to “doing housework” (d640) and “assisting others” (d660) respectively from the ICF description (table 2).

We modified several activity illustrations to make them more relevant to developed countries or the lower limb: maintaining a lying position was changed from prone to supine; sitting was changed from the floor to a chair; lifting was changed from an object on a table to the floor; carrying in the hand was changed from a glass to a suitcase; carrying on shoulders, and back was changed from a child to a backpack; putting on clothes was change from upper extremity to lower extremity (table 2).

## Think-aloud interviews

Eighteen participants were recruited in the study. Detailed participant demographic information is presented in Table 1. Three in-person and 15 virtual interviews were conducted between July and September 2023. Each interview lasted between 30 minutes and one hour.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/22/2024.03.20.24304636/T1)

Table 1. Think-aloud interview demographic characteristics.

## Issues identified and corresponding modifications

The issues faced by participants were classified into three themes: clarity/comprehension, item order, and visual elements. All participants conveyed that they did not find the number of questions burdensome or overwhelming. Table 2 shows participant quotes from the think-aloud interviews. In the following section, corresponding quotes are referenced as “*Quote X*”.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/22/2024.03.20.24304636/T2)

Table 2. OA ICF core set categories revision with verbatim quotations from participants during the think aloud interview.

### Theme 1: Clarity and comprehension

#### General concepts

All ICF activity descriptions were removed, except those that required further clarification. This approach streamlined the questionnaire by eliminating unnecessary elements to enhance its simplicity and user-friendliness, which can increase the response rate.

The ability to perform activities with or without the use of aids was unclear to some participants. The following clarification was added to the instructions: “Consider your current ability with or without an aid (such as cane, crutches, knee braces, etc.)”.

#### Changing and maintaining body position

The term “maintaining” was replaced with “holding” in all relevant questions, as the former was not clear during the think-aloud interview (*Quote 11*). Since some participants encountered issues related to holding, “how difficult is it to hold…” was changed to “for how long can you hold…”. “Lying down and getting up” and “kneeling down” were unclear for some patients, as the ability could depend on the height of the surface (*Quotes 1,3)*. “In the bed” was added for “lying down and getting up,” and “on the ground” for “kneeling down”. Similarly, the term “partial or full squat” was added to squatting and holding a squatting position (*Quotes 2, 14)*. Some participants found the question about sitting and standing unclear (*Quotes 4-7*). The terms “average chair” and “with or without arms” were added for further clarity. “Such as standing at the sink or in a line” was added to holding a standing position to provide clarification.

“Over or to the side (such as reaching down for an object)” was added to bending (*Quote 8*). “From side to side” was added to shifting the body with the explanation” for example, moving from one foot to another while standing or shifting your weight while sitting” (*Quote 9*). “Such as back to side” was added to rolling over (*Quote 10*). “During the day” was added to holding a lying position for further clarification (*Quotes 12,13*).

#### Lifting and carrying objects

There were issues about the location and weight of the object during lifting and putting down activities (*Quotes 15, 16, 20*). “From the floor” was added to lifting and putting down and divided into light and heavy objects. Also, “less than 1 pound” was used for light and “more than 10 pounds” for heavy.51,52 A similar issue was raised for carrying in the hand (*Quote 17*), so “such as a suitcase or grocery bag” was added. The term “hip” in carrying on the shoulder, hip and back was omitted (*Quote 18*), with “such as a backpack” added for clarification (*Quote 19*).

#### Walking

Some participants mentioned that walking short and long distances were unclear (*Quotes 21, 22*), so “less than 1 km” for short distances and “more than 1 km” for long distances were added based on the ICF descriptions. “On flat surfaces” was also added *(Quote 23)*. Additionally, the questions were restructured from “how difficult is it to walk short and long distances” to “How far can you walk short and long distances?”. We excluded the term “ice” as an example in the question concerning walking on different surfaces since participants mentioned it was much more challenging (*Quote 24*).

#### Moving around

The question regarding crawling was removed due to its lack of face validity for patients after arthroplasty (*Quote 25*). Similarly, the terms “ladder” and “rocks” were excluded from the question related to climbing (*Quote 26*). Going up and down stairs was divided into two separate questions, since patients noted that the ability to ascend stairs differs from the ability to descend (*Quote 27*) and “10 to 12 stairs” was added for more clarification (*Quote 28*). Moreover, the term “jogging” was incorporated within the running activity (*Quote 29*). Similarly, “swimming” was moved from “moving around” section to become a sports example (*Quote 30*)

#### Moving around using transportation

Due to ambiguity related to “getting in and out of a car”, “using public transportation”, and “biking” (*Quotes 31-34*), “own car or a taxi”, “a bus or train”, and “to go to a place or for recreation” were added to these activities respectively.

#### Washing oneself

Washing body parts was reworded to “washing lower body parts” to make it more relevant to patients after hip or knee arthroplasty (*Quote 35*).

#### Toileting

Due to ambiguity in the question about going to the toilet (*Quote 36*), we included the description “such as getting to the washroom, getting into and out of position, manipulating clothing, and cleaning oneself” based on the wording from the ICF description.

#### Dressing

The description of putting on and taking off footwear was enriched by incorporating the example of “shoes and/or socks” (*Quote 37*).

Domestic life and intimate relationships

A participant pointed out that shopping could encompass online shopping, which was not aligned with the intended focus (*Quote 38*) and was therefore modified to “going shopping”. The term “intimate” was changed to “sexual” for more clarification (*Quote 40*).

#### Assisting others

The explanation “with their learning, communicating” was excluded (*Quote 39*) to focus on the physical aspect of assisting others.

#### Employment

Participants noted that the abilities to do the activities for self-employment, part-time and full-time employment were similar (*Quote 43*). Consequently, they were unified under the term “work” (*Quote 41*). In consideration of ambiguity related to “work” (*Quote 42*), it was split into two questions: paid job and unpaid work. Furthermore, recognizing that a significant number of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty are retired, we included the response option “I am retired” in the question related to employment.

#### Community, social and civic life

Community life was merged with socializing due to their overlapping concepts (*Quote 44*). Participants stated that the term “sport” was somewhat ambiguous (*Quote 45*). To address this, we provided examples of sports common among people undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty.53,54 Moreover, based on existing literature highlighting the impact of dancing on physical health,55,56 dancing was reclassified from an art and culture activity to a sport activity.

### Theme 2: Items ordering

Some participants noted challenges in differentiating between changing and maintaining body position. To address this, changing and maintaining body position questions were put one after the other for each activity. There were comments on the order of ability and importance, and importance was put before ability.

We also moved similar activities together, “rolling over” was placed after “lying in bed and getting up”, “putting down objects” was placed after “lifting objects”, “running/jogging” was moved from the “moving around” section to “community, social, and civic life” section after sports.

### Theme 3: Visual elements

Several comments were received regarding the images during the cognitive interviewing process. For example, the picture for walking long distances on flat surfaces seemed like walking on hills. The image depicting walking long distances on flat surfaces was adjusted to more accurately match the question. A research team member (MK) made the following image modifications: “holding the squatting position” from full to partial squat; “walking for long distances” from hills to flat surfaces; “washing the whole body” from sitting to standing; “washing body part” from hands to feet; “standing” from standing from the floor to standing from a chair”; “kneeling” from sitting to kneel to standing to kneel; “lying down” from the floor to bed; “maintaining a sitting position” from a table to a chair. Images for descending stairs, ascending a curb or step, washing lower body parts and rolling over were created by modifying existing ICF illustrations.

## Pilot testing

Following the think-aloud session, we conducted a pilot test of the online questionnaire. This test involved 10 participants, including 5 who underwent hip arthroplasty and 5 who underwent knee arthroplasty within 1, 6, 13, and 26 weeks prior to the study. The primary objective of this initial testing was to assess whether participants encountered any challenges while completing the questionnaire. Participants were free to complete the questionnaire using a computer, tablet or phone.

We administered the questionnaire through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web application designed for building and managing online surveys and databases for research studies. One of our research team members (MK) converted the questionnaire to the REDCap platform. One researcher (MK) contacted eligible individuals via phone to invite them to participate. We applied an implied consent format placed at the beginning of the questionnaire. During the pilot testing phase, the participants did not face any specific issues or barriers. Minor adjustments were made to the questionnaire design to enhance readability, primarily focused on modifying font styles and sizes to ensure optimal clarity and accessibility for participants.

## Discussion

We developed a questionnaire to determine the activities deemed important by patients with OA undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty based on the activity and participation components of ICF core set for OA. Additionally, we evaluated the face and content validity of the questionnaire through the research team’s refinement and patient’s think-aloud interviews.

The findings of this study indicate that the third-level categories of the OA ICF core set can be used to measure functioning following hip or knee arthroplasty. However, several activities lacked face validity for multiple reasons, including not being relevant to lower extremities, almost never performed, not encompassing all genders, or not being applicable to developed countries, which suggests the need for reconsideration regarding their inclusion for hip or knee arthroplasty. These results align with previous studies suggesting the removal of fine hand use (d440) and hand and arm use (d445) for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty.28 It is noteworthy that all previous assessments of the ICF core set for OA 57–60 were conducted using the second level categories/items. Our study was the first to use the third level of the OA core set which captures a more comprehensive understanding of patients’ functioning in various aspects of daily life. Moreover, some third level activities within six categories may not be necessary since they require similar abilities justifying the use of second-level categories.

Including all activities adds unnecessary complexity and burden to the evaluation process.

The results of this study suggest that the OA and total knee arthroplasty ICF core sets would benefit from review and modifications to capture the functioning of patients post hip or knee arthroplasty. Previous research has also suggested that the OA core set was missing other relevant categories for patients after arthroplasty.28 We recommend adding unpaid work and going up and down stairs to the OA core set, and also adding changing and maintaining body position, driving, shopping, doing housework, assisting others, intimate relationship and community life to the total knee arthroplasty core set. We also recommend adding weight parameters to lifting, adding flat surfaces to walking short and long distances, narrowing the focus of washing to lower body parts, and separating the activities lying down and getting up.

Another issue patients encountered during the think-aloud interviews was the complex wording found in the ICF. The ICF and corresponding core sets were not developed to be completed by patients. It has been argued that measurement instruments should typically be created for a reading level equivalent to age 12.61 Hence, we simplified the wording of the ICF framework to make the information accessible to individuals from diverse backgrounds and reading levels.

### Limitations

The study participants are residents of one Canadian province, and the findings may not be directly applicable to other populations. In addition, our recruitment was limited to English-speaking patients who underwent primary elective knee and hip arthroplasty for OA, which may impact the generalizability of our findings. Another limitation was that content analysis of transcripts was performed by one researcher, albeit with peer checking conducted by other research team members. Our recruitment focused on patients at 2, 6, 13, and 26 weeks after hip or knee arthroplasty, limiting the applicability of the questionnaire to other timeframes.

However, since functional recovery mainly takes place during the first 6 months after arthroplasty,42,43 it is less likely that the findings would significantly change beyond this timeframe.

## Conclusion

The developed questionnaire based on the ICF core set for OA can be used to assess which activities are important for patients with OA undergoing arthroplasty, contributing to a better understanding of desired outcomes and patient expectations at different time points during post-operative recovery. The questionnaire validation process through the think-aloud interviews identified and addressed issues concerning comprehension, item order, and visual elements.

Furthermore, the pilot study highlighted the feasibility of the online questionnaire and using third-level activities of the ICF core set for OA to assess activity importance for patients after hip or knee arthroplasty.

## Supporting information

Appendix A [[supplements/304636_file04.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

## Funding/Support

MK is supported by an admission scholarship (2020-2024), international doctoral scholarship (2020-2024), Special Merit Scholarship (2022-2024) from the university of Ottawa, Hans K. Uhthoff, MD FRCSC Graduate fellowship (2022, 2023), BMO financial Group Graduate scholarship (2022), and Ontario Physiotherapy Scholarship (2023).

## Conflict of interest

The authors do not report a potential conflict of interest

## Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to all the study participants for their time, patience and contributions.

*   Received March 20, 2024.
*   Revision received March 20, 2024.
*   Accepted March 22, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## References

1.  1.Naik AD, Catic A. Achieving patient priorities: an alternative to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for promoting patient-centred care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30(2):92–95. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012244.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjMwLzIvOTIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMy8yMi8yMDI0LjAzLjIwLjI0MzA0NjM2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

2.  2.Cheraghi-Sohi S, Hole AR, Mead N, et al. What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients’ priorities. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(2):107–115. doi:10.1370/afm.816
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiYW5uYWxzZm0iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiNi8yLzEwNyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAzLzIyLzIwMjQuMDMuMjAuMjQzMDQ2MzYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

3.  3.Epstein RM,  Street RL Jr. The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):100–103. doi:10.1370/afm.1239
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiYW5uYWxzZm0iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiOS8yLzEwMCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAzLzIyLzIwMjQuMDMuMjAuMjQzMDQ2MzYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

4.  4.Wensing M, Jung HP, Mainz J, Olesen F, Grol R. A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(10):1573–1588. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00222-6
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00222-6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9823053&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000076549500018&link_type=ISI) 

5.  5.Britto MT, DeVellis RF, Hornung RW, DeFriese GH, Atherton HD, Slap GB. Health care preferences and priorities of adolescents with chronic illnesses. Pediatrics. 2004;114(5):1272–1280. doi:10.1542/peds.2003-1134-L
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1542/peds.2003-1134-L&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15520107&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224842700012&link_type=ISI) 

6.  6.Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, et al. Observational study of effect of patient centredness and positive approach on outcomes of general practice consultations. BMJ. 2001;323(7318):908–911. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7318.908
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMjMvNzMxOC85MDgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMy8yMi8yMDI0LjAzLjIwLjI0MzA0NjM2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

7.  7.Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(9):796–804.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11032203&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000089693700003&link_type=ISI) 

8.  8.Neuprez A, Neuprez AH, Kaux JF, Kurth W, Daniel C, Thirion T, Huskin JP, Gillet P, Bruyère O, Reginster JY. Total joint replacement improves pain, functional quality of life, and health utilities in patients with late-stage knee and hip osteoarthritis for up to 5 years. Clinical rheumatology. 2020 Mar;39:861–71.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

9.  9.Singh JA, O’Byrne M, Harmsen S, Lewallen D. Predictors of moderate-severe functional limitation after primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA): 4701 TKAs at 2-years and 2935 TKAs at 5-years. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(4):515–521. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2009.12.001
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.joca.2009.12.001&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20060950&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000276867900005&link_type=ISI) 

10. 10.Wylde V, Hewlett S, Learmonth ID, Dieppe P. Persistent pain after joint replacement: prevalence, sensory qualities, and postoperative determinants. Pain. 2011;152(3):566–572. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.023
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.023&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21239114&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000287192200018&link_type=ISI) 

11. 11. Te Molder MEM, Smolders JMH, Heesterbeek PJC, van den Ende CHM. Definitions of poor outcome after total knee arthroplasty: an inventory review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):378. Published 2020 Jun 13. doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03406-y
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12891-020-03406-y&link_type=DOI) 

12. 12.Lützner C, Postler AE, Druschke D, Riedel R, Günther KP, Lange T. Ask Patients What They Expect! A Survey Among Patients Awaiting Total Hip Arthroplasty in Germany. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(8):1594–1601.e4. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2022.03.067
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.arth.2022.03.067&link_type=DOI) 

13. 13.Lange T, Schmitt J, Kopkow C, Rataj E, Günther KP, Lützner J. What Do Patients Expect From Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Delphi Consensus Study on Patient Treatment Goals. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(7):2093–2099.e1. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.053
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.053&link_type=DOI) 

14. 14.Mancuso CA, Salvati EA, Johanson NA, Peterson MG, Charlson ME. Patients’ expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12(4):387–396. doi:10.1016/s0883-5403(97)90194-7
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0883-5403(97)90194-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9195314&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997XE29200005&link_type=ISI) 

15. 15.Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:35–43. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000238825.63648.1e
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.blo.0000238825.63648.1e&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16967035&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

16. 16.Kim TK, Kwon SK, Kang YG, Chang CB, Seong SC. Functional disabilities and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty in female Asian patients. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(3):458–464.e4642. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.01.018
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.arth.2009.01.018&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19251391&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000276862300021&link_type=ISI) 

17. 17.Razmjou H, Yee A, Ford M, Finkelstein JA. Response shift in outcome assessment in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2590–2595. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00283
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiamJqc2FtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI4OC8xMi8yNTkwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMjIvMjAyNC4wMy4yMC4yNDMwNDYzNi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

18. 18.Mannion AF, Kämpfen S, Munzinger U, Kramers-de Quervain I. The role of patient expectations in predicting outcome after total knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(5):R139. doi:10.1186/ar2811
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/ar2811&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19772556&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

19. 19.Weiss JM, Noble PC, Conditt MA, et al. What functional activities are important to patients with knee replacements?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;(404):172–188. doi:10.1097/00003086-200211000-00030
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00003086-200211000-00030&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12439258&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

20. 20.Rastogi R, Davis AM, Chesworth BM. A cross-sectional look at patient concerns in the first six weeks following primary total knee arthroplasty. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:48. Published 2007 Aug 1. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-48
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1477-7525-5-48&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17678532&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

21. 21.Burns KE, Duffett M, Kho ME, et al. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. CMAJ. 2008;179(3):245–252. doi:10.1503/cmaj.080372
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxNzkvMy8yNDUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMy8yMi8yMDI0LjAzLjIwLjI0MzA0NjM2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

22. 22.Passmore C, Dobbie AE, Parchman M, Tysinger J. Guidelines for constructing a survey. Fam Med. 2002;34(4):281–286.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12017142&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

23. 23.Connell J, Carlton J, Grundy A, et al. The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL). Qual Life Res. 2018;27(7):1893–1902. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1847-y
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11136-018-1847-y&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

24. 24.DIN, P. C. B. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health.
    
    

25. 25.Threats TT. Use of the ICF for guiding patient-reported outcome measures. Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders. 2012;22(4):128–35.8
    
    

26. 26.Dreinhöfer K, Stucki G, Ewert T, et al. ICF Core Sets for osteoarthritis. J Rehabil Med. 2004;(44 Suppl):75–80. doi:10.1080/16501960410015498
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/16501960410015498&link_type=DOI) 

27. 27.Pisoni C, Giardini A, Majani G, Maini M. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core sets for osteoarthritis. A useful tool in the follow-up of patients after joint arthroplasty. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2008;44(4):377–385.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18469736&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000260934600001&link_type=ISI) 

28. 28.Alviar MJ, Olver J, Pallant JF, et al. Can the ICF osteoarthritis core set represent a future clinical tool in measuring functioning in persons with osteoarthritis undergoing hip and knee joint replacement?. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(11):955–961. doi:10.2340/16501977-1041
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2340/16501977-1041&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22948262&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

29. 29.Huang SW, Chen YW, Escorpizo R, Liao CD, Liou TH. Development International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for Post Total Knee Replacement Rehabilitation Program: Delphi-Based Consensus Study in Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):1630. Published 2021 Feb 9. doi:10.3390/ijerph18041630
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph18041630&link_type=DOI) 

30. 30.Mendonca D, Warren NA. Perceived and unmet needs of critical care family members. Crit Care Nurs Q. 1998;21(1):58–67. doi:10.1097/00002727-199805000-00009
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00002727-199805000-00009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9644362&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

31. 31.Nemoto T, Beglar D. Likert-scale questionnaires. InJALT 2013 conference proceedings 2014 (pp. 1–8).
    
    

32. 32.Chang L. A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied psychological measurement. 1994;18(3):205–15.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/014662169401800302&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1994QZ56000002&link_type=ISI) 

33. 33.Reynolds L, Johnson R. Is a picture is worth a thousand words? Creating effective questionnaires with pictures. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 2019;16(1):8.
    
    

34. 34.Taherdoost H. Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. 2016 Aug 10.
    
    

35. 35.Zumbo BD, Hubley AM. Understanding and Investigating Response Processes in Validation Research. Vol 26. Springer; 2017.
    
    

36. 36.Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. sage publications; 2004.
    
    

37. 37.Kuusela H, Paul P. A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. Am J Psychol. 2000;113(3):387–404.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/1423365&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10997234&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

38. 38.Dumenci L, Perera RA, Keefe FJ, et al. Model-based pain and function outcome trajectory types for patients undergoing knee arthroplasty: a secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(6):878–884. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2019.01.004
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.joca.2019.01.004&link_type=DOI) 

39. 39.Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Hanna SE, Wessel J, Gollish JD. Modeling early recovery of physical function following hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:100. Published 2006 Dec 11. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-100
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2474-7-100&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17156487&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

40. 40.Maloy GC, Kammien AJ, Rubin LE, Grauer JN. Adverse Events After Total Hip Arthroplasty are not Sufficiently Characterized by 30-Day Follow-Up: A Database Study. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(3):525–529. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.020
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.020&link_type=DOI) 

41. 41.Bohl DD, Ondeck NT, Basques BA, Levine BR, Grauer JN. What Is the Timing of General Health Adverse Events That Occur After Total Joint Arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(12):2952–2959. doi:10.1007/s11999-016-5224-2
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11999-016-5224-2&link_type=DOI) 

42. 42.Oatis CA, Li W, DiRusso JM, et al. Variations in Delivery and Exercise Content of Physical Therapy Rehabilitation Following Total Knee Replacement Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Observation Study. Int J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;Suppl 5:002. doi:10.4172/2329-9096.S5-002
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4172/2329-9096.S5-002&link_type=DOI) 

43. 43.Kittelson AJ, Elings J, Colborn K, et al. Reference chart for knee flexion following total knee arthroplasty: a novel tool for monitoring postoperative recovery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):482. Published 2020 Jul 22. doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03493-x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12891-020-03493-x&link_type=DOI) 

44. 44.Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533–544. doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y&link_type=DOI) 

45. 45.Coyne IT. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries?. J Adv Nurs. 1997;26(3):623–630. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9378886&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997XW48500050&link_type=ISI) 

46. 46.Leese J, Li LC, Nimmon L, Townsend AF, Backman CL. Moving Beyond “Until Saturation Was Reached”: Critically Examining How Saturation Is Used and Reported in Qualitative Research. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021;73(9):1225–1227. doi:10.1002/acr.24600
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/acr.24600&link_type=DOI) 

47. 47.Stemler S. An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation. 2000;7(1):17.
    
    

48. 48.Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage; 1994.
    
    

49. 49.Spall S. Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models. Qualitative inquiry. 1998;4(2):280–92.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/107780049800400208&link_type=DOI) 

50. 50.Implemented ICF Update Proposals 2018. Accessed December 30, 2023. [https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/implemented-icf-update-proposals-2018](https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/implemented-icf-update-proposals-2018)
    
    

51. 51.Tyser AR, Beckmann J, Franklin JD, et al. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am. 2014;39(10):2047–2051.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.06.130
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.06.130&link_type=DOI) 

52. 52.Roddey TS, Olson SL, Cook KF, Gartsman GM, Hanten W. Comparison of the University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale and the Simple Shoulder Test with the shoulder pain and disability index: single-administration reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 2000;80(8):759–768.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToicHRqb3VybmFsIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjgwLzgvNzU5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMjIvMjAyNC4wMy4yMC4yNDMwNDYzNi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

53. 53.Swanson EA, Schmalzried TP, Dorey FJ. Activity recommendations after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a survey of the American Association for Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 Suppl):120–126. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.05.014
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.arth.2009.05.014&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19698910&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000269607800025&link_type=ISI) 

54. 54.Sowers CB, Carrero AC, Cyrus JW, Ross JA, Golladay GJ, Patel NK. Return to Sports After Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Umbrella Review for Consensus Guidelines. Am J Sports Med. 2023;51(1):271–278. doi:10.1177/03635465211045698
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/03635465211045698&link_type=DOI) 

55. 55.Hui E, Chui BT, Woo J. Effects of dance on physical and psychological well-being in older persons. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;49(1):e45–e50. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2008.08.006
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.archger.2008.08.006&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18838181&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

56. 56.Keogh JW, Kilding A, Pidgeon P, Ashley L, Gillis D. Physical benefits of dancing for healthy older adults: a review. J Aging Phys Act. 2009;17(4):479–500. doi:10.1123/japa.17.4.479
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1123/japa.17.4.479&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19940326&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

57. 57.Bossmann T, Kirchberger I, Glaessel A, Stucki G, Cieza A. Validation of the comprehensive ICF core set for osteoarthritis: the perspective of physical therapists. Physiotherapy. 2011;97(1):3–16. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2009.11.011
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.physio.2009.11.011&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21295233&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000287779500002&link_type=ISI) 

58. 58.Xie F, Lo NN, Lee HP, Cieza A, Li SC. Validation of the Comprehensive ICF Core Set for Osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with knee OA: a Singaporean perspective. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(11):2301–2307.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoianJoZXVtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzNC8xMS8yMzAxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMjIvMjAyNC4wMy4yMC4yNDMwNDYzNi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

59. 59.Kurtaiş Y, Oztuna D, Küçükdeveci AA, Kutlay S, Hafiz M, Tennant A. Reliability, construct validity and measurement potential of the ICF comprehensive core set for osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:255. Published 2011 Nov 8. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-255
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2474-12-255&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22067295&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F22%2F2024.03.20.24304636.atom) 

60. 60.Weigl M, Wild H. European validation of The Comprehensive International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for Osteoarthritis from the perspective of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(26):3104–3112. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1377295
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/09638288.2017.1377295&link_type=DOI) 

61. 61.Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, USA; 2015.