RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Oxford Hip Score

Oxford Hip Score

Last Updated

Purpose

The Oxford Hip Score (OHS) is a short assessment of 12 items with patient-reported outcomes. It is designed to assess a patient’s pain and function after they have received hip replacement surgery. The single summed score at the end of the assessment helps reflect the severity of problems that the patient has with his or her hip. Overall, the OHS allows a practitioner to assess the outcomes of hip interventions.

Link to Instrument

Acronym OHS

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Coordination
Functional Mobility
Gait
Negative Affect
Occupational Performance
Pain
Seating
Sleep

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

CDE Status

Not a CDE--last searched 3/13/2024

 

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Arthritis + Joint Conditions
  • Pain Management

Populations

Osteoarthritis
Orthopedic Surgery

Key Descriptions

  • There are 12 items in the instrument.
  • Each of the items has 5 categories of response.
  • Each item is scored from 0 to 4, with 4 being the best outcome. The scores for each of the items are added together to produce the overall score.
  • The overall composite score is a continuous score ranging from 0 (most severe symptoms) to 48 (least symptoms).
  • The outcome developed is a questionnaire that is to be completed by the patient, relative, friend, or researcher. The questionnaire is available to be completed by mail, as well.
  • The OHS is administered on paper, electronically, or via telephone and can be completed anywhere.

Number of Items

12

Equipment Required

  • Oxford Hip Score and a writing utensil

Time to Administer

5 minutes

5 minutes or less

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Adrienne Barr, SPT, Neal Darmody, SPT, Brent Denisar, SPT, Katie Kinsinger, SPT, Zainab Kothari, SPT, Lauren Ott, SPT, Anthony Phan, SPT, Bryan Pyrc, SPT, Lauren Ryan, SPT, Charliann Scott, SPT, and Rebecca Schuck, SPT. 8/10/2013

Updated on 3/15/2024 by Master of Occupational Therapy students Angelina Castle, Lauren Dimayuga, Yazmin Esparza, & Meghan Cabrera under the direction of Sabrin Rizk, PhD, OTR/L, Dept. of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois Chicago 

Body Part

Lower Extremity

ICF Domain

Body Structure
Body Function
Activity

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living
General Health
Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

None found--last searched 3/15/2024

Considerations

(Pynsant et al, 2005)

  • Recommend alternative scoring method to account for missing data and to make scoring less confusing and more readily interpretable
    • Always score both limbs to cover the scope of the joint issues
    • Completely healthy joints scored at 0% and completely unhealthy joints scored at 100%, as opposed to 12 points and 60 points respectively 

(Murray et al, 2007) 

  • Some question wording can be changed or clarified in order to make sure that the patient understands what the question is asking
  • The OHS should be scored on a scale of 0 to 48 with 0 being the worst result and 48 being the best result; specifically, the questions should be scored on a scale of 0 to 4
  • The OHS is the best and most reliable assessment of hip replacement
    • It can be used in conjunction with other general health outcome measures in order to get a better picture of overall health improvement after a hip replacement
  • When used during cohort studies, the OHS should be assessed pre-operatively and post-operatively in order to evaluate the change in score and the final outcome score
    • The post-operative score could be assessed one year post-op because most functional improvements occur within the first year
  • If there are bilateral hip problems, it is recommended to administer two separate questionnaires, rather than modify one to include both extremities
  • Categorization should be avoided, as evidence based cut points are still being developed and current cut points may only be approximate
    • If cut points must be used, its recommended that they are the following (based on the 0 to 48 scale, 48 being the best result):
      • Excellent: > 41
      • Good: 34 - 41
      • Fair: 27 - 33
      • Poor: < 27
  • The OHS can be used for other hip impairments, though it has not been validated for any use other than hip replacements
  • If a patient leaves two or more questions unanswered the questionnaire should not be scored
  • If a patient chooses more than one answer for a question, the worst response should be adopted

(Martinelli et al, 2011)

  • OHS is the only validated outcome measure in an Italian version, thus can be used as a comparison of outcome in groups of Italian patients 

(Paulsen et al, 2012)

  • Since the patients are all post-operative, it was expected the OHS to be highly skewed, and it could therefore be argued that referring to ceiling effects could be misleading

(Harris et al., 2014)

  • Separate Pain and Function subscales may be calculated:
    • The OHS Pain domain subscale comprises 6 questionnaire items: 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. For analysis, a raw score is first computed by summing respondents' response scores to each of these 6 items, producing raw scores between 0 and 24. The raw scores are then converted to a subscale from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) using the following formula: 100/maximum possible domain score X actual (raw) score.
    • The OHS Function domain subscale comprises 6 questionnaire items: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The score for the OHS Function domain subscale is calculated using the same formula as for the OHS Pain domain subscale.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us! 

Osteoarthritis

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Hip Osteoarthritis:

(Martin-Fernandez, et al., 2017; n = 359; mean age = 67.8 years; Spanish translation of OHS)

  • SEM for entire group (n = 359): 2.0

 

(Naal et al., 2012; n = 157; mean age = 65.7 (1.8) years; female = 79; subjects with end-stage OA and scheduled for THA; German translation of OHS)

  • SEM for ADL subscale (n = 157): 1.8
  • SEM for sports subscale (n = 157): 2.3

 

(Tu?ay et al., 2015; n = 70; mean age = 61.45 (9,29); female = 42 (60%); duration of OA = 18.95 (15.19) months; Turkish translation into OHS-TR)

  • SEM for entire group (n = 70): 0.16

 

(Martinelli et al, 2011; n = 96; mean age = 62.7 (5.8) years; mean OA duration = 2.5 (1.4) years; Italian speaking sample) 

  • SEM = 1.92; calculated from 5.81 x (square root (1-.89))

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Hip Osteoarthritis:

(Martin-Fernandez, et al., 2017)

  • MDC for entire group (n = 359): 5.5

 

(Tu?ay et al., 2015)

  • MDC for entire group (n = 70): 2.3

(Naal et al., 2012)

  • MDC for ADL subscale (n = 157): 5.1
  • MDC for sports subscale (n = 157: 6.4

(Martinelli et al, 2011)

  • Smallest Detectable Difference = 6.11 points

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Hip Osteoarthritis:

(Martin-Fernandez, et al., 2017)

  • MCID for entire group (n = 359): 7.0

Test/Retest Reliability

Hip Osteoarthritis:

(Martin-Fernandez, et al., 2017)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (n = 124): (ICC = 0.992)

     

(Tu?ay et al., 2015)

  • Excellent  test-retest reliability for total OSH-TR: (r = 0.980, p < 0.001)
  • Acceptable to Excellent test-retest reliability for individual items: (ICC’s = between 0.80 and 0.99)

(Martinelli et al, 2011) 

  • Excellent test retest reliability (ICC = 0.89) 

 

Internal Consistency

Hip Osteoarthritis:

(Martin-Fernandez, et al., 2017)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.928*

(Tu?ay et al., 2015)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93*

(Naal et al., 2012)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93* for ADL subscale and 0.88 for Sport subscale

(Martinelli et al, 2011) 

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas = 0.85 to 0.89) at baseline and after treatment

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

 

 

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Hip Osteoarthritis:

(Martin-Fernandez, et al., 2017)

  • Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed a unidimensional structure that explained 55.5% of the variance in the OHS scores (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Test (KMO) = 0.945, Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 = 2667, 66 degrees of freedom, p < 0.001).
    • Since the test value is >0.90, the validity was optimal.
  • Excellent convergent validity between OHS scores and scales of the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC):
    • Pain (r = -0.807)
    • Stiffness (r = -0.686)
    • Functionality (r = -0.893)
  • Adequate to Excellent convergent validity between OHS scores and scales of the EQ-5D-5 L:
    • Mobility (rho = -0.768)
    • Self-care (rho = -0.728)
    • Performance of daily activities (rho = -0.748)
    • Pain/discomfort (rho = -0.778)
    • Anxiety/depression (rho = -0.562)
    • Utility Index (r = 0.835)
    • Visual Analogue Scale (r = 0.575)

 

(Tu?ay et al., 2015; n=70; mean age = 61.45)

  • Excellent  convergent validity between OHS-TR scores and scores on the WOMAC and SF-36 subscales (p < 0.001):
    • WOMAC
      • Total: r = -0.848
      • Pain: r = -0.724
      • Stiffness: r = -0.662
      • Function: r = -0.791
    • SF36
      • Physical component summary: r = 0.772
      • Physical functioning: r = 0.719
      • Bodily pain: r = 0.671
      • Role physical: r = 0.669
  • Adequate convergent validity between OHS-TR scores and scores on SF-36 subscales (p  < 0.001):
    • Social functioning: r = 0.546
    • General health: r = 0.546

(Martinelli et al, 2011) 

  • Excellent correlation with SF-36 subscales physical functioning, bodily pain, and social functioning mean change pre and post treatment (Spearman’s p = 0.58, 0.63, 0.50 respectively)
  • Excellent correlation with VAS mean change pre and post treatment (Spearman’s p = -0.60)

Discriminant validity:

Hip Osteoarthritis:

(Tu?ay et al., 2015)

  • Adequate  discriminant validity between scores on the OHS-TR and SF-36 subscales (p  < 0.001):
    • Mental component summary: r = 0.434
    • Vitality: r = 0.380
    • Role emotional: r = 0.487
  • Poor discriminant validity between scores on the OHS-TR and SF-36 Mental Health subscale (r = 0.601, p < 0.001)

 

 

 

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Hip Osteoarthritis:

(Martin-Fernandez, et al., 2017)

  • Adequate ceiling effects for total score of 0.84% on inclusion visit and 3.08% of the patients who underwent hip replacement after six months

(Tu?ay et al., 2015)

  • Excellent: No floor or ceiling effect was found for the total OHS-TR score
  • Adequate: Floor effect found in 1 item: Item 1 = 15.7%

(Naal et al., 2012)

  • At baseline:
    • Excellent: No floor or ceiling effect for the ADL subscale
    • Poor: Floor effect of 20.5% for the Sport subscale
  • After 6 months:
    • Adequate: Ceiling effects of 13.9% for Sport subscale
    • Poor: Ceiling effects of 31.3% in ADL subscale
    • Adequate: Floor effects of 4.4% for ADL subscale and 2.2% for Sport subscale

(Martinelli et al, 2011) 

  • Excellent ceiling effects: No ceiling effects
  • Excellent floor effects: No floor effects 

 

Responsiveness

Hip Osteoarthritis:

(Martin-Fernandez, et al., 2017)

  • Changes observed in OHS questionnaire at 6 months of the follow-up period in patients that reported health condition changes:
    • Hip condition is “much worse” (n = 53): 0.69 effect size
    • Hip condition is “slightly worse” (n = 78): 0.42 effect size
    • Hip condition is “slightly better” (n = 34): 0.73 effect size
    • Hip condition is “much better” (n = 60): 1.71 effect size
  • Changes observed in OHS questionnaire at 6 months of the follow-up period in patients having undergone hip arthroplasty or not:
    • Not Arthroplasty
      • Hip condition is “much worse” (n = 51): 0.69 effect size
      • Hip condition is “slightly worse” (n = 76): 0.42 effect size
      • Hip condition is “slightly better” (n =19): 0.39 effect size
      • Hip condition is “much better” (n = 14): 1.28 effect size
    • Arthroplasty
      • Hip condition is “much worse” (n = 1): no effect size
      • Hip condition is “slightly worse” (n = 2): 0.55 effect size
      • Hip condition is “slightly better” (n = 15): 1.35 effect size
      • Hip condition is “much better” (n = 46): 1.94 effect size

 

(Martinelli et al, 2011) 

  • Large responsiveness (Effect Size = 1.98) and (Standardized Response Mean = 1.12) after treatment with hyaluronic acid injections 

 

Orthopedic Surgery

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Total Hip Replacement:

(Impellizzeri et al., 2015; n = 550; mean age = 66 (10) years)

  • SEM for entire group (n = 550): 2.2 

 

(Sabah et al., 2022; n = 332,635)

  • SEM for primary hip replacement (n = 313,338): 2.6
  • SEM for revision hip replacement (n = 19,297): 2.8

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Total Hip Replacement: 

(Impellizzeri et al., 2015)

  • MDC for entire group (n = 550): 6.1 

 

(Beard et al., 2015; n = 82,415; NHS Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures data set)

  • MDC for entire group (n = 82,415): 4.85

 

(Sabah et al., 2022; n = 332,635)

  • MDC90 for primary hip replacement (n = 313,338): 6
  • MDC90 for revision hip replacement (n = 19,297): 6.6

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Total Hip Replacement:

(Beard et al., 2015; n = 82,415)

  • MCID for entire group (n = 82,415): 10.63

     

(Sabah et al., 2022; n = 332,635)

  • MCID for primary hip replacement (n = 313,338): 12.4 (95% CI: 12.3-12.5)
  • MCID for revision hip replacement (n = 19,297): 8.6 (95% CI: 8.3-8.9)

Normative Data

Total Hip Replacement: 

(Hamilton et al., 2015, n = 3203, mean age = 68 (11.3), female = 58.4%)

  • Examples from an extensive normative data set include:
    • For the mean population (T=50) of Men 60-70 years old, 21 was the preoperational OHS score, 42 was the OHS score at six months post-operation, and 44 was the OHS score at 12 months post-operation.
    • For the mean population (T=50) for Women 70-80 years old, 18 was the preoperational OHS score, 40 was the six months post-operation score, and 41 was the 12-month post-operation score.

(Fitzpatrick et al, 2000; n = 7151; mean age = 67.8; patients evaluated preoperatively initially and 3 months post-op total hip replacement) 

  • Weak association between ASA and OHS outcomes
    • 3 month follow up: OHS difference -1.5 for fit and healthy on ASA versus minor or severe medical problems on ASA
    • 12 month follow up: OHS difference -2.3 for fit and healthy on ASA versus minor or severe medical problems on ASA

Test/Retest Reliability

Total Hip Replacement: 

(Impellizzeri et al., 2015)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability: (ICC = 0.97)

(Paulsen et al, 2012; n = 2278; ages 30 - 80 years; the patients had received a primary THR either one to tow, five to six, or ten to eleven years before dispatch of the PROMs) 

  • Adequate test retest reliability (ICC > 0.70)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Total Hip Replacement:

(Kalairajah et al, 2005; n = 196; mean age = 68.4 years; 5 years post-op total hip arthroplasty) 

  • Adequate interrater agreement (Weighted kappa = 0.679)

Internal Consistency

Total Hip Replacement: 

(Fitzpatrick et al, 2000) 

  • Excellent internal consistency at baseline, 3 months post-op, and 12 months post-op (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86, 0.90, 0.92 respectively) 

 

(Paulsen et al, 2012) 

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.99)

(Impellizzeri et al., 2015)

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89)

     

(Larsson et al., 2019; n = 111, median age = 69 (19-100), female = 52%)

  • Excellent:  Cronbach’s α = 0.93*

     

(Weel et al., 2017; n = 167 total hip arthroplasties (in 155 patients), mean age = 68.8 (8.7))

  • Excellent:  Cronbach’s alpha for baseline OHS = 0.88.
  • Excellent:  Cronbach’s alpha for OHS one year after surgery = 0.96*

 

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Construct Validity

Total Hip Replacement:

(Baumen et al, 2007; n = 170; mean age = 66.4 years; post-op 1 year total hip arthroplasty) 

  • Poor correlation with UCLA (r = -0.2) 

 

Total Hip Replacement:

(Garbuz et al, 2006; n = 402; mean age = 61 years; patients evaluated preoperatively initially and 12 months post-op total hip replacement) 

  • Excellent correlation with WOMAC global, pain, and functional subscales (Spearman’s p = 0.82, 0.81, 0.87) 

 

Total Hip Replacement:

(Kalairajah et al, 2005) 

  • Excellent negative correlation between Harris Hip Score and Oxford Hip score (Spearman’s p = -0.712)

 

Total Hip Replacement:

(Paulsen et al, 2012) 

  • Adequate to excellent correlation with HOOS Pain, HOOS PS and HOOS QoL; the pain/discomfort domain, mobility, current state of health and the usual activities domain from the EQ - 5D; and the body pain domain from the SF-12 (Spearman’s p = 0.50 - 0.80)
  • Poor correlation with the anxiety/depression and self-care domains of the EQ - 5D, and the mental component score, vitality and social functioning domains from the SF - 12 (Spearman’s p < 0.50) 

 

Content Validity

Total Hip Replacement: 

(Holmenlund et al., 2021; n = 28, male = 15 (54%))

  • This study used a qualitative approach and discovered additional items that patients deem relevant that are not included in the OHS.
    • Indicated the OHS fails to cover all important items regarding living with an artificial hip and current patient preferences are higher compared to those when the OHS was developed.

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Total Hip Replacement:

(Garbuz et al, 2006) 

  • Poor ceiling effects: 25.4% in pain subscale, 22.6% in function subscale, 13.4% in global subscale (postoperation); 0.5% in function subscale (preoperation)
  • Adequate floor effects: 1.5% in pain subscale, 0.3% in function subscale (preoperation); 0.3% in pain subscale, 0.3% in function subscale (postoperation) 

 

(Paulsen et al, 2012) 

  • Adequate ceiling effects: 19.9% in post-operative patients
  • Excellent floor effects: No floor effects

 

(Weel et al., 2017)

  • Poor ceiling effect of 36.4% found for the OHS one year after surgery
  • Excellent: No floor effects

(Larsson et al., 2019)

  • Poor total ceiling effect of 31% was found for the OHS
    • 68% to 94% chose option 1 (best) for each of the questions in the OHS questionnaire
  • Excellent: No floor effects

Responsiveness

Total Hip Replacement:

(Baumen et al, 2007) 

  • Large responsiveness (Effect size = 3.96) 

 

(Fitzpatrick et al, 2000) 

  • 3 months: Large responsiveness (Effect size = 2.5)
  • 12 months: Large responsiveness (Effect size = 3.1) 

 

(Garbuz et al, 2006) 

  • Moderate responsiveness for Global and pain (Effect size = 0.4, 0.66 respectively)
  • Small responsiveness for pain (Effect size = - 0.23)

 

(Paulsen et al, 2012) 

  • Large responsiveness: 87.4%

(Weel et al., 2017)

  • Large Change: The standardized response mean (SRM) effect size for the OHS was 2.1.

Bibliography

Bauman, S., Williams, D., et al. (2007). Physical activity after total joint replacement: a cross-sectional survey. Clin J Sport Med 17(2): 104-108. 

Beard, D. J., Harris, K., Dawson, J., Doll, H., Murray, D. W., Carr, A. J., & Price, A. J. (2015). Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(1), 73-79.

Dawson, J., Jameson-Shortall, E., et al. (2000). Issues relating to long-term follow-up in hip arthroplasty surgery. The Journal of Arthroplasty 15(6): 710-717. 

Fitzpatrick, R., Morris, R., et al. (2000). The value of short and simple measures to assess outcomes for patients of total hip replacement surgery. Quality in Health Care 9(3): 146-150. 

Garbuz, D. S., Xu, M., et al. (2006). PatBients' outcome after total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index and the Oxford 12-item hip score. The Journal of Arthroplasty 21(7): 998-1004.

Hamilton, D. F., Giesinger, J. M., Patton, J. T., MacDonald, D. J., Simpson, A. H. R. W., Howie, C. R., & Glesinger, K. (2015). Making the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores meaningful at the patient level through normative scoring and registry data. Bone Joint 嫩B研究院, 4, 137-144.

Harris, K. K., Price, A. J., Beard, D. J., Fitzpatrick, R., Jenkinson, C., & Dawson, J. (2014). Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Hip Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Bone Joint 嫩B研究院, 3(11), 305-309.

Holmenlund, C., Overgaard, S., Bilberg, R., & Varnum, C. (2021). Evaluation of the Oxford Hip Score: Does it still have content validity? Interviews of total hip arthroplasty patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19(1), 237.

Impellizzeri, F. M., Mannion, A. F., Naal, F. D., & Leunig, M. (2015). Validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness of the Oxford Hip Score in patients undergoing surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy, 31(1), 42-50.

Kalairajah, Y., Azurza, K., et al. (2005). Health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasties--a comparison between the Harris hip score and the Oxford hip score. The Journal of Arthroplasty 20(8): 1037.

Larsson, A., Rolfson, O., & K?rrholm, J. (2019). Evaluation of Forgotten Joint Score in total hip arthroplasty with Oxford Hip Score as reference standard. Acta Orthopaedica, 90(3), 253-257.

Martinelli, N., Longo, U. G., et al. (2011). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation with reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Oxford Hip Score in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Qual Life Res 20(6): 923-929. 

Martin-Fernandez, J., Gray-Laymón, P., Molina-Siguero, A., Martínez-Martín, J., García-Maroto, R., García-Sánchez, I., García-Pérez, L., Ramos-García, V., Castro-Casas, O., & Bilbao, A.(2017). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Oxford Hip Score in patients with hip osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 18(1), 205.  

Murray, D., Fitzpatrick, R., et al. (2007). The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume 89(8): 1010-1014.

Naal, F. D., Impellizzeri, F. M., von Eisenhart‐Rothe, R., Mannion, A. F., & Leunig, M. (2012). Reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the hip outcome score in patients with end‐stage hip osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care &amp; 嫩B研究院, 64(11), 1770–1775.  

Paulsen, A., Odgaard, A., et al. (2012). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish version of the Oxford hip score: Assessed against generic and disease-specific questionnaires. Bone Joint Res 1(9): 225-233. 

Pynsent, P., Adams, D., et al. (2005). The Oxford hip and knee outcome questionnaires for arthroplasty OUTCOMES AND STANDARDS FOR SURGICAL AUDIT. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume 87(2): 241-248.

Sabah, S. A., Alvand, A., Beard, D. J., & Price, A. J. (2022). Minimal important changes and differences were estimated for Oxford hip and knee scores following primary and revision arthroplasty. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 143, 159-168. .

Tugay, B. U., Tugay, N., Guney, H., Hazar, Z., Yuksel, I., & Atilla, B. (2015). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version of the Oxford hip score. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 135(7), 879-889.

University of Oxford. (2016, June 4). The Oxford Hip Score. Oxford University Innovation.

Weel, H., Lindeboom, R., Kuipers, S. E., & Vervest, T. M. J. S. (2017). Comparison between the Harris- and Oxford Hip Score to evaluate outcomes one-year after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, 83(1), 98-109

 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Feb 27, 2025

Psychosocial Impact of Ass...

read more

updated Aug 15, 2024

Activities-Specific Balanc...

read more

updated Aug 10, 2024

Home and Community Environ...

read more