Italian Version of the Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool: Properties and Usefulness of a Decision-Making Tool for Subjects’ Discharge after Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty


  • Marco Monticone Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari; Neurorehabilitation unit, Dept. Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, G. Brotzu Hospital, Cagliari, Italy
  • Luca Frigau Department of Economics and Business Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
  • Cristiano Sconza Rehabilitation Unit, Humanitas Hospital, Institute of Care and Research, Rozzano, Italy
  • Calogero Foti Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
  • Francesco Mola Department of Economics and Business Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
  • Stefano Respizzi Rehabilitation Unit, Humanitas Hospital, Institute of Care and Research, Rozzano, Italy



RAPT, cross-cultural adaptation, predictive validity, logistic regression, repeated leave-one-out bootstrap.


Background: Growing attention is being given to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We culturally adapt and validate the Italian version of the Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool (RAPT-I) to allow its predictive use after THA and TKA.

Methods: The RAPT-I was adapted by forward–backward translation, a final review by an expert committee and a test of the pre-final version to establish its correspondence with the original version. The psychometric testing included test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC). The RAPT score was used to predict the subjects’ destination (<6: rehabilitation unit; 6–9: additional intervention before discharging home; or >9: discharge directly at home) by comparing the actual discharge destination with the predicted destination. The predictive effects of RAPT items on the discharge destination were further described by a logistic regression model (repeated leave-one-out bootstrap procedure).

Results: The questionnaire was administered to 78 subjects with THA and 70 subjects with TKA and proven to be acceptable. The questionnaire showed excellent test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.839; with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.725–0.934 for THA; ICC = 0.973, with 95% CI of 0.930–0.997 for TKA). The RAPT-I overall predictive validity was 87.2%, and the discharge destination was directly related to living condition (odds ratio (OR) = 2.530), mobility (OR = 2.626) and age (OR = 1.332) and inversely related to gait aids (OR = 0.623) and gender (OR = 0.474).

Conclusions: The RAPT-I was successfully adapted into Italian and proven to exhibit satisfactory properties, including predictive validity in determining discharge destination.


Torre M, Bellino S, Luzi I, Ceccarelli S, Salvatori, G, Balducci M, et al. Progetto Registro Italiano ArtroProtesi. Terzo Report. Controllo e qualità dei dati. Roma: Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore; 2016.

Kremers HM, Visscher SL, Moriarty JP, Reinalda MS, Kremers WK, Naessens JM, et al. Determinants of direct medical costs in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 206-14. DOI:

Rolfson O, Ström O, Kärrholm J, Malchau H, Garellick G. Costs related to hip disease in patients eligible for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 1261-6. DOI:

Bozic KJ, Stacey B, Berger A, Sadosky A, Oster G. Resource utilization and costs before and after total joint arthroplasty. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12: 73. DOI:

Oldmeadow LB, McBurney H, Robertson VJ. Predicting risk of extended inpatient rehabilitation after hip or knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18: 775-9. DOI:

Hansen VJ, Gromov K, Lebrun LM, Rubash HE, Malchau H, Freiberg AA. Does the risk assessment and prediction tool predict discharge disposition after joint replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 597-601. DOI:

Slover J, Mullaly K, Karia R, Bendo J, Ursomanno P, Galloway A, et al. The use of the Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool in surgical patients in a bundled payment program. Int J Surg 2017; 38: 119-22. DOI:

De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge University Press; 2011. DOI:

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186-91. DOI:

Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 2005; 8: 94-104. DOI:

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42. DOI:

Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. The Lancet 1974; 304: 1127-31. DOI:

Salaffi F, Leardini G, Canesi B, Mannoni A, Fioravanti A, Caporali R obo, et al. Reliability and validity of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index in Italian patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2003; 11: 551-60. DOI:

Monticone M, Ferrante S, Salvaderi S, Rocca B, Totti V, Foti C, et al. Development of the Italian version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for patients with knee injuries: cross-cultural adaptation, dimensionality, reliability, and validity. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20: 330-5. DOI:

Monticone M, Giorgi I, Baiardi P, Barbieri M, Rocca B, Bonezzi C. Development of the Italian version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-I): cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine 2010; 35: 1241-6. DOI:

Apolone G, Mosconi P. The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1025-36. DOI:

Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992: 473-83. DOI:

Jiang W, Simon R. A comparison of bootstrap methods and an adjusted bootstrap approach for estimating the prediction error in microarray classification. Stat Med 2007; 26: 5320-34. DOI:

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014. 2015.

Coudeyre E, Eschalier B, Descamps S, Claeys A, Boisgard S, Noirfalize C, et al. Transcultural validation of the Risk Assessment and Predictor Tool (RAPT) to predict discharge outcomes after total hip replacement. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2014; 57: 169-84. DOI:

Coudeyre E, Descamps S, Mc Intyre J, Boisgard S, Poiraudeau S, Lefevre-Colau MM. Translation and French cultural adaptation of a decision making tool for patients orientation after total hip or knee arthroplasty. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2009; 52: 694-703. DOI:

Dauty M, Schmitt X, Menu P, Rousseau B, Dubois C. Using the Risk Assessment and Predictor Tool (RAPT) for patients after total knee replacement surgery. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2012; 55: 4-15. DOI:

Oldmeadow LB, McBurney H, Robertson VJ, Kimmel L, Elliott B. Targeted postoperative care improves discharge outcome after hip or knee arthroplasty1, 212. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 1424-7. DOI:

Coudeyre E, Lefevre-Colau M-M, Griffon A, Camilleri A, Ribinik P, Revel M, et al. Is there predictive criteria for transfer of patients to a rehabilitation ward after hip and knee total arthroplasty? Elaboration of French clinical practice guidelines. Ann. Réadapt. Médecine Phys., vol. 50, Elsevier; 2007, p. 327-36. DOI:

Mahomed NN, Koo MSL, Levesque J, Lan S, Bogoch ER. Determinants and outcomes of inpatient versus home based rehabilitation following elective hip and knee replacement. J Rheumatol 2000; 27: 1753-8.

Oldmeadow LB, McBurney H, Robertson VJ. Hospital stay and discharge outcomes after knee arthroplasty: implications for physiotherapy practice. Aust J Physiother 2002; 48: 117-21. DOI:

Pablo P de, Losina E, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Mahomed N, Lingard EA, et al. Determinants of discharge destination following elective total hip replacement. Arthritis Care Res 2004; 51: 1009-17. DOI:




How to Cite

Monticone, M., Frigau, L., Sconza, C., Foti, C., Mola, F., & Respizzi, S. (2019). Italian Version of the Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool: Properties and Usefulness of a Decision-Making Tool for Subjects’ Discharge after Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. International Journal of Statistics in Medical Research, 8, 8–16.



General Articles