Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026
Video Movement Analysis Using Smartphones (ViMAS): A Pilot Study
Published on: March 14, 2017
Collection of the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 Using a Smartphone Application Format Is Faster and Preferred
David Zhu1, Steven F DeFroda1, Robert Browning1
1Section of Young Adult Hip Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hip Preservation Center, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Purpose:
To evaluate the agreeability between the mobile application-based International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) survey with the paper version, as well as compare the time it takes patients each of the versions, and patient preferences between the two.
Methods:
Patients seen with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were prospectively enrolled in February 2019 and completed both the paper and application-based iHOT-12, in randomized order. Outcomes scores and time to completion were recorded for each version, and patients were also asked which they preferred. Intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to assess for absolute agreement between the 2 versions. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to evaluate the agreeability between paper and application-based iHOT-12 scores. Bland-Altman plots were evaluated to identify systematic bias and data stratification was performed to identify sequence bias between the application and paper-based collection modalities.
Results:
Twenty-nine patients (aged15-56 years) completed both the paper and application-based versions of the iHOT-12. Between the application-based and paper versions, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.98, and Bland-Altman analysis showed agreement without bias between versions. There was no sequence bias. Accounting for completion order, the application-based iHOT-12 was faster for patients when compared to the paper version (61.4 ± 20.3 vs 71.9 ± 23.6 seconds, P = .02). Twenty-two patients reported a version preference where 19 of 22 (86%) chose application-based (P < .001).
Conclusions:
The application-based iHOT-12 demonstrated absolute agreement with the paper iHOT-12, and is faster for patients to complete. Patients preferred using the application-based iHOT-12 over the paper-based version. Application-based PROs allow for collection of patient data at more frequent time points, which may be helpful in tracking the recovery progress of patients and predicting outcomes.
Clinical Relevance:
As electronic-based outcome surveys become more common, it is important to know how the results may differ from traditional paper-based surveys.
