Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the foot function index for use in german-speaking patients with foot complaints

Foot and Ankle International

Volumn 29, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 1222-1228

  Naal, Florian D ^a   Impellizzeri, Franco M ^a   Huber, Martin ^a   Rippstein, Pascal F ^a  

^a SCHULTHESS CLINIC   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

FFI; Foot and ankle surgery; Foot function index; Outcome assessment; Self administered questionnaires; Translation and validation; UCLA

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CRONBACH ALPHA COEFFICIENT; CULTURAL FACTOR; DISABILITY SEVERITY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; FOOT; FOOT FUNCTION INDEX; FOOT INJURY; FOOT PAIN; FOOT SURGERY; GERMANY; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; LANGUAGE; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SEX RATIO; SHORT FORM 36; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION STUDY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; FEMALE; FOOT; FOOT DISEASES; GERMANY; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LOS ANGELES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TRANSLATIONS;

EID: 58149215742     PISSN: 10711007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2008.1222     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Agel, J; Beskin, JL; Brage, M; et al.: Reliability of the Foot Function Index: A report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee. Foot Ankle Int 26:962-967, 2005.
2. Beaton, DE; Bombardier, C; Guillemin, F; Ferraz, MB: Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186-3191, 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
3. Bland, JM: Altman, DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet i:307-310, 1986.
4. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90220-4
5. Budiman-Mak, E; Conrad, KJ; Stuck, R; Matters, M: Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index. Foot Ankle Int27:519-527, 2006.
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. Domsic, RT; Saltzman, CL: Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int 19:466-471, 1998.
8. Gagliese, L; Weizblit, N; Ellis, W; Chan, VW: The measurement of postoperative pain: A comparison of intensity scales in younger and older surgical patients. Pain 117:412-420, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. pain.2005.07.004
9. Guyton, G: Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS Scoring Systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int 22:779-787, 2001.
10. 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 Rheumatol 29:1023-1028, 2003.
11. Lau, JT; Mahomed, NM; Schon, LC: Results of an Internet survey determining the most frequently used ankle scores by AOFAS members. Foot Ankle Int 26:479-482, 2005.
12. Martin, RL; Irrgang, JJ: A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37:72-84, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2007.2403
13. Parker, J; Nester, CJ; Long, AF; Barrie, J: The problem with measuring patient perceptions of outcome with existing outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 24:56-60, 2003.
14. Saag, KG; Saltzman, CL; Brown, CK; Budiman-Mak, E: The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot Ankle Int 17:506-510, 1996.
15. SooHoo, NF; Samimi, DB; Vyas, RM; Botzler, T: Evaluation of the validity of the Foot Function Index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Foot Ankle Int 27:38-42, 2006.
16. SooHoo, NF; Shuler, MS; Fleming, LL: Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating System by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int 24:50-55, 2003.
17. Terwee, CB; Bot, SD; de, Boer, MR; et al.: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34-42, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03. 012
18. Toolan, B; Wright, Quinones, V; Cunningham, B; Brage, M: An evaluation of the use of retrospectively acquired preoperative AOFAS clinical rating scores to assess surgical outcome after elective foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 22:775-778, 2001.
19. Walter, SD; Eliasziw, M; Donner, A: Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 17:101-110, 1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1%3C101::AID-SIM727%3E3.0. CO;2-E
20. Zahiri, CA; Schmalzried, TP; Szuszczewicz, ES; Amstutz, HC: Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 13:890-895, 1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90195-4