Current concepts review: Foot and ankle outcome instruments

Foot and Ankle International

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 383-390

  Martin, RobRoy L ^a,b   Irrgang, James J ^a,c   Lalonde, Karl A ^a,d   Conti, Stephen ^a,e  

^a 114 Ranges School of Health Sciences ^*

^b Department of Orthopaedic Surgery   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^e ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANKLE; ANKLE FRACTURE; ARTICLE; BODY REGIONS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOOT DISEASE; FOOT PAIN; FOOT SURGERY; HEALTH STATUS; HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS; HUMAN; KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS; LIGAMENT SURGERY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; POSTTRAUMATIC ARTHROPATHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; ROC CURVE; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 36; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY;

EID: 33646429201     PISSN: 10711007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107110070602700514     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Beaton, DE: Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine. 25:3192-3199, 2000.
2. Beaton, DE; Schemitsch, E: Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clin. Orthop 413:90-105, 2003.
3. Bellamy, N; Buchanan, WW; Goldsmith, CH; Campbell, J; Stitt, LW: Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J. Rheumatol. 15:1833-1840, 1988.
4. Brazier, JE; Harper, R; Jones, NM; et al.: Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. B.M.J. 305:160-164, 1992.
5. Budiman-Mak, E; Conrad, KJ; Roach, KE: The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 44:561-570, 1991.
6. Button, G; Pinney, S: A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int. 25:521-525, 2004.
7. Deyo, RA; Centor, RM: Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J. Chronic Dis. 39:897-906, 1986.
8. Dhawan, V; Spratt, KF; Pinzur, MS; et al.: Reliability of the AOFAS Diabetic Foot Questionnaire in Charcot Arthropathy: Stability, Internal Consistency, and Measurable Difference. Foot Ankle Int. 26:717-731, 2005.
9. Domsic, RT; Saltzman, CL: Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int. 19:466-471, 1998.
10. Engelberg, R; Martin, DP; Agel, J; et al.: Musculoskeletal Function Assessment instrument: criterion and construct validity. J. Orthop. Res. 14:182-192,1996.
11. Haley, SM; McHorney, CA; Ware, JE, Jr.: Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 47:671-684, 1994.
12. Kantz, ME; Harris, WJ; Levitsky, K; Ware, JE, Jr.; Davies, AR: Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med. Care. 30:MS240-252, 1992.
13. Kitaoka, HB; Alexander, IJ; Adelaar, RS; et al.: Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 15:349-353, 1994.
14. Kocher, MS; Steadman, JR; Briggs, KK; Sterett, WI; Hawkins, RJ: Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am. J. Sports Med. 32:629-634, 2004.
15. Lahey, MA; DR, Saal, FE: Intraclass correlations: There is more than meets the eye. Psychol Bull. 93:586-595, 1983.
16. Martin, RL; Irrgang, JJ; Burdett, RG; Conti, SF; Van Swearingen, JM: Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int. 26:968-983, 2005.
17. McHorney, CA; Ware, JE, Jr.; Rogers, W; Raczek, AE; Lu, JF: The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 30: MS253-265, 1992.
18. McHorney, CA; Ware, JE, Jr.; 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. 31:247-263, 1993.
19. McHorney, CA; Haley, SM; Ware, JE, Jr.: Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50:451-461, 1997.
20. Messick, S: Meaning an values in test validation: The Science and ethics of assessment. Educational researcher. 18:5-11, 1989.
21. Olerud, C; Molander, H: A scoring scale for symptom evaluation after ankle fracture. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 103:190-194, 1984.
22. Pantano, KJ; Irrgang, JJ; Burdett, R; et al.: A pilot study on the relationship between physical impairment and activity restriction in perscins with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at long-term follow-up. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 9:369-378, 2001.
23. Patrick, DL; Deyo, RA: Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med. Care 27:5217-232, 1989.
24. Pugia, ML; Middel, CJ; Seward, SW; et al.: Comparison of acute swelling and function in subjects with lateral ankle injury. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 31:384-388, 2001.
25. Roos, EM; Brandsson, S; Karlsson, J: Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 22:788-794, 2001.
26. Rowan, K: The development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of chronic foot pain: the Rowan Foot Pain Assessment Questionnaire (ROFPAQ). Foot Ankle Int. 22:795-809, 2001.
27. Simmonds, MJ; Olson, SL; Jones, S; et al.: Psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of physical performance tests in patients with low back pain. Spine. 23:2412-2421, 1998.
28. Snyder-Mackler, L; Fitzgerald, GK; Bartolozzi, AR, 3rd; Ciccotti, MG: The relationship between passive joint laxity and functional outcome after anterior cruciate ligament injury. Am. J. Sports Med. 25:191-195, 1997.
29. SooHoo, NF; Shuler, M; Fleming, LL: Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int. 24:50-55, 2003.
30. Stewart, AL; Hays, RD; Ware, JE, Jr.: The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med. Care. 26:724-735, 1988.
31. Stratford, PW; Binkley, J; Solomon, P; et al.: Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys. Ther. 76:359-365; discussion 366-358, 1996.
32. Tarlov, AR; Ware, JE, Jr.; Greenfleld, S; et al.: The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. J.A.M.A. 262:925-930, 1989.
33. Ware, JE, Jr.; Sherbourne, CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 30:473-483, 1992.
34. Whyte, J: Toward a methodology for rehabilitation research. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 73:428-435, 1994.
35. World. World Health Organization: International Classification of Impairment, Disabilities, and Handicaps, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.
36. Zelle BA; Herzka, HA; Harner CD; Irrgang JJ: Evaluation of clinical outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Op. Tech. Orthop. 15:76-84, 2005.