Responsiveness of the Foot Function Index, AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery

Foot and Ankle International

Volumn 27, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 930-934

  SooHoo, Nelson F ^a,b   Vyas, Raj ^a   Samimi, David ^a  

^a PVUB #3355 ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

AOFAS Clinical Rating; Foot Function Index; Outcomes; Responsiveness

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMERICAN ORTHOPEDIC FOOT AND ANKLE SOCIETY CLINICAL RATING SYSTEM; ANKLE; ANKLE INJURY; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; EFFECT SIZE; FEMALE; FOOT DISEASE; FOOT FUNCTION INDEX; FOOT SURGERY; FOREFOOT; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PAIN; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 36; STANDARDIZATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33750534564     PISSN: 10711007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107110070602701111     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Amadio, PC; Silverstein, MD; Ilstrup, MD; Schleck, CK; Jensen LM: Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: The relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical exam 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. Foot Ankle Int. In Press.
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. 50:79-93, 1997.
4. Beaton, DE; Richards, RR: Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 7:565-572, 1998.
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. 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.
7. 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. 25:521-525, 2004.
8. Jaglol S, Lakhani Z, Schatzker J: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the lower extremity measure for patients with a hip fracture. J. Bone Joint Surg. 82-A:955-962, 2000.
9. Katz JN, Gelberman RH, Wright EA, Lew RA, Liang MH: Responsiveness of self-reported and objective measures of disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med. Care 32:1127-1132, 1994.
10. 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.
11. Kocher, MS; Horan, MP; Briggs, KK; et al.: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Subjective Shoulder Scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J. Bone Joint Surg. 87-A:2006-2011.
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. 29:1023-1028, 2002.
13. Liang MH: Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J. Rheum. 22(6):1191-1192, 1995.
14. Liang, MH; Fossel, AH; Larson, MG: Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med. Care. 28:632-642, 1990.
15. 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.
16. Lohr, KN; Aaronson, NK; Alonso, J; et al.: Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteria. Clin. Ther. 18:979-992, 1996.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Marx, RG; Jones, EC; Alien, AA; et al.: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A:1459-1469, 2001.
20. 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. 31:247-263, 1993.
21. 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. 17:506-510, 1996.
22. 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. 71:39-46, 2000.
23. SooHoo, NF; Samimi D; Vyas R; Botzler T: Evaluation of the validity of the Foot Function Index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle complaints. Foot Ankle Int. 27:38-42, 2006.
24. 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. 24:50-55, 2003.
25. 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. 24:1910-1915, 1997.
26. Walsh, TL; Hanscom, B; Lurie, JD; Weinstein, JN: Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary: The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 28:607-615, 2003.
27. Ware, JE: SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide, The Health Institute, Boston, 1993.
28. Ware, JE; Kosinski, M; Keller, SD: SF-36 Physical and mental health summary scales: A user's manual, The Health Institute, Boston, 1994.