Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability and Responsiveness of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale in Patients With Anterior Knee Pain

Watson, Cynthia J., Propps, Micah, Ratner, Jennifer, Zeigler, David L., Horton, Patricia, Smith, Susan S.·2005·Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective methodological study of repeated measures using a sample of consecutive patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS) and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) in patients with anterior knee pain. BACKGROUND: Anterior knee pain is one of the most common orthopedic complaints affecting the knee. Yet there is currently no self-report outcome measure that has well-established reliability and responsiveness, specifically for this population. As a result, clinicians and researchers may be making inappropriate conclusions regarding patient outcomes by using questionnaires that are misleading. METHODS AND MEASURES: This multisite study involved 30 patients from 4 outpatient physical therapy clinics in Dallas, TX (24 women, 6 men; age range, 16-50 years; mean+/-SD age, 35.2+/-9.1 years). Patients receiving physical therapy for a chief complaint of anterior knee pain completed the AKPS and LEFS at their initial appointment and again 2 to 3 days later. Upon completion of physical therapy, the patients completed the AKPS, LEFS, and a global rating of change form. The treating therapist also completed a global rating of change form at the patient's final visit. The mean of the patient's and therapist's global rating of change was used as the criterion measure of change. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was high for both questionnaires (ICC2,1 = 0.95 for the AKPS and 0.98 for the LEFS). A significant correlation was found between the criterion measure of change and both questionnaires. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that both questionnaires were moderately responsive with the area under the curve slightly higher for the LEFS (0.77) than the AKPS (0.69). CONCLUSION: The LEFS and the AKPS both demonstrated high test-retest reliability and appear to be moderately responsive to clinical change in patients with anterior knee pain. Reliability and responsiveness were slightly higher in the LEFS than the AKPS. Further research is needed to determine if these measures could be modified, or new measures created, to produce an even more sensitive tool for this population.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2519/jospt.2005.35.3.136

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
Watson, C. J., Propps, M., Ratner, J., Zeigler, D. L., Horton, P., & Smith, S. S.
Venue
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
Published
2005-03
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
136-146
ISSN
  • 0190-6011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-1344
OpenAlex
W2063910976
Cited by
290
References
16
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability and Responsiveness of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale in Patients With Anterior Knee Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2519/jospt.2005.35.3.136
The paper
Watson, C. J., Propps, M., Ratner, J., Zeigler, D. L., Horton, P., & Smith, S. S. (2005). Reliability and Responsiveness of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale in Patients With Anterior Knee Pain. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2005.35.3.136

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.