Evaluation of the validity of the foot function index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle disorders

Foot and Ankle International

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 38-42

  SooHoo, Nelson F ^a,b   Samimi, David B ^a   Vyas, Raj M ^a   Botzler, Tin ^a  

^a PVUB #3355 ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Foot Function Index; Outcomes; SF 36

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ANKLE INJURY; ARTICLE; FEMALE; FOOT DISEASE; FOOT FUNCTION INDEX; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT MONITORING; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VALIDATION STUDY;

EID: 30944454666     PISSN: 10711007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107110070602700107     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Amadio, PC; Silverstein, MD; Ilstrup, MD; Schleck, CD; Jensen LM: Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: The relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical examination measures. J. Hand Surg. 21-A:338-346, 1996.
2. Beskin, J; Brage, M; Guyton, G; et al.: Reproducibility of the Foot Function Index: A report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee. Submitted for publication.
3. Beaton, DE; Hogg-Johnson, S; Bombardier, C: Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J. Clin. Epidemiology. 50(1):79-93, 1997.
4. Beaton, DE; Richards, RR: Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires. J. Bone Joint Surg. 78-A:882-890, 1996.
5. Bessette, L; Sangha, O; Kuntz, KM; et al.: Comparative responsiveness of generic vs. disease-specific and weighted vs. unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med. Care. 36:491-502, 1998.
6. Boardman, DL; Dorey, F; Thomas, BJ; Lieberman JR: The accuracy of assessing total hip arthroplasty outcomes: A prospective correlation study of walking ability to 2 validated measurement devices. J. Arthroplasty. 15(2):200-204, 2000.
7. Budiman-Mak, E; Conrad, KJ; Roach, KE: The Foot Function Index: A measure of foot pain and disability. J. Clin. Epidemiology. 44:561-570, 1991.
8. Button, G; Pinney, S: A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: Is there a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument? Foot Ankle Int. 25(8):521-525, 2004.
9. Daltroy, LH; Liang, MH; Fossel, AH; Goldberg, MJ: The POSNA Pediatric Musculoskeletal Functional Health Questionnaire. Report on the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J. Ped. Orthop. 18:561-571, 1998.
10. Kirschner, S; Walther, M; Bohm, D; et al.: German short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire (SMFA-D): comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC in a prospective evaluation in patients with primary osteoarthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Rheum. Int. 23:15-20, 2003.
11. Kitaoka, HB; Alexander, IJ; Adelaar, RS; et al.: Clinical Rating Systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 15(7):349-353, 1994.
12. Kuyvenhoven, MM; Gorter, KJ; Zuithoff, P; et al.: The Foot Function Index with Verbal Rating Scales (FFI-5pt): A clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. J. Rheum. 29(5); 1023-1028, 2002.
13. Liang, MH; Fossel, AH; Larson, MG: Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopaedic evaluation. Med. Care. 28:632-642, 1990.
14. Lingard, EA; Katz, JN; Wright, RJ; Wright, EA; Sledge, CB: Validity and Responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A:1856-1864, 2001.
15. Mangione, CM; Goldman, L; Orav, EJ; et al.: Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: Measurement of longitudinal changes. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 12:686-697, 1997.
16. Martin, DP; Engelberg, R; Agel, J; Swiontkowski, MF: Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile health-status measures. J. Bone Joint Surg. 79-A:1323-1335, 1997.
17. Marx, RG; Jones, EC; Allen, AA; et al.: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A:1459-1469, 2001.
18. McHorney, CA; Ware, JE; Raczek, AE: The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med. Care. 31(3):247-263, 1993.
19. Patrick, DL; Deyo, RA; Atlas, SJ; et al.: Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine 20(17):1899-1909, 1995.
20. Saag, KG; Saltzman, CL; Brown, K; Budiman-Mak E: The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot Ankle Int. 17(8):506-510, 1996.
21. Soderman, P; Malchau, H; Validity and reliability of the Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index: A self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) versus generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP). Acta Orthop. Scand. 71(1):39-46, 2000.
22. SooHoo, NF; McDonald, AP; Seiler, JG; McGillivary, GR: Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. J. Hand Surg. 27-A(3):537-541, 2002.
23. SooHoo, NF; Shuler, MS; Fleming, LL: Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int. 24(1):50-55, 2003.
24. Tuttleman, M; Pillemer, SR; Tilley, BC; et al.: A cross sectional assessment of health status instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis participating in a clinical trial. J. Rheum. 24(10):1910-1915, 1997.
25. Ware, JE: SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide, The Health Institute, Boston, 1993.
26. Ware, JE; Kosinski, M; Keller, SD: 5F-36 Physical and mental health summary scales: A user's manual, The Health Institute, Boston, 1994.
27. Wittink, H; Turk, DC; Carr, DB; Sukiennik, A; Rogers, W. Comparison of the redundancy, reliability, and responsiveness to change among SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index, and Multidimensional Pain Inventory. Clin. J. Pain. 20(3):133-142, 2004.