Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 4/2016

01-04-2016 | Ankle

Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure

Authors: Hanneke Weel, Ruben Zwiers, Donija Azim, Inger N. Sierevelt, Daniel Haverkamp, C. Niek van Dijk, Gino M. M. J. Kerkhoffs

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to develop a Dutch language version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) and evaluate its measurement properties according to the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) definitions.

Methods

A forward–backward translation procedure was performed and subsequently the Dutch version of the FAAM was evaluated for its reliability and validity in 369 patients with a variety of foot and ankle complaints. The reliability was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, test–retest reliability), Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency), the standard error of measurement and the minimal detectable change (MDC). Additionally, this was done for athletes. The construct validity was assessed by the use of Spearman’s correlation coefficient between FAAM domains and similar and contradictory domains of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, Short Form 36 and the Numeric Rating Scale for pain.

Results

The ICC of the subscales ranged from 0.62 to 0.86. Cronbach’s alpha’s minimum was 0.97. At individual level, the MDC ranged from 23.9 to 44.7 and at group level from 2.77 to 4.32. In the subgroup of athletes, the reliability was higher. The hypothesized correlations of the construct validity were supported by an 80 % confirmation rate.

Conclusion

The Dutch version of the FAAM met adequate measurement properties, although the reliability is not optimal. The FAAM-Sport subscale is more useful in athletes and the FAAM-Sport % seems not to contribute. In athletes with various foot and ankle symptoms, the FAAM can be used for functional assessment and follow-up at group level. For the general population, the FAAM is less appropriate.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic study, Level I.
Literature
1.
Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, Sprangers MA, te Velde A, Verrips E (1998) Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1055–1068CrossRefPubMed
2.
Borloz S, Crevoisier X, Deriaz O, Ballabeni P, Martin RL, Luthi F (2011) Evidence for validity and reliability of a French version of the FAAM. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:40CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Cronbach LJ, Warrington WG (1951) Time-limit tests: estimating their reliability and degree of speeding. Psychometrika 16:167–188CrossRefPubMed
4.
de Boer MR, de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Moll AC, Volker-Dieben HJ, van Rens GH (2005) Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:1260–1268CrossRefPubMed
5.
de Groot IB, Favejee MM, Reijman M, Verhaar JA, Terwee CB (2008) The Dutch version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: a validation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
de Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Favejee M, Roos EM, Verhaar JA (2007) Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15:104–109CrossRefPubMed
7.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM (2006) When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1033–1039CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Gagliese L, Weizblit N, Ellis W, Chan VW (2005) The measurement of postoperative pain: a comparison of intensity scales in younger and older surgical patients. Pain 117:412–420CrossRefPubMed
10.
Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1417–1432CrossRefPubMed
11.
Hale SA, Hertel J (2005) Reliability and sensitivity of the foot and ankle disability index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train 40:35–40PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Johanson NA, Liang MH, Daltroy L, Rudicel S, Richmond J (2004) American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:902–909PubMed
13.
Martin RL, Irrgang JJ (2007) A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37:72–84CrossRefPubMed
14.
Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM (2005) Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int 26:968–983PubMed
15.
Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Lalonde KA, Conti S (2006) Current concepts review: foot and ankle outcome instruments. Foot Ankle Int 27:383–390PubMed
16.
Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Negahban H, Sohani SM, Taghizadeh F, Feizi A, Karimi A, Parnianpour M (2010) Reliability and validity of the Persian version of Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18:755–759CrossRefPubMed
17.
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307CrossRefPubMed
18.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 19:539–549CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745CrossRefPubMed
20.
Nauck T, Lohrer H (2011) Translation, cross-cultural adaption and validation of the German version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure for patients with chronic ankle instability. Br J Sports Med 45:785–790CrossRefPubMed
21.
Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J (2001) Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 22:788–794PubMed
22.
Sierevelt IN, Beimers L, van Bergen CJ, Haverkamp D, Terwee CB, Kerkhoffs GM (2014) Validation of the Dutch language version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.​1007/​s00167-014-3017-2
23.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42CrossRefPubMed
24.
Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2012) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 21:651–657CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483CrossRefPubMed
26.
Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test–retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19:231–240PubMed
27.
Williams GN, Molloy JM, DeBerardino TM, Arciero RA, Taylor DC (2003) Evaluation of the Sports Ankle Rating System in young, athletic individuals with acute lateral ankle sprains. Foot Ankle Int 24:274–282PubMed
Metadata
Title
Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure
Authors
Hanneke Weel
Ruben Zwiers
Donija Azim
Inger N. Sierevelt
Daniel Haverkamp
C. Niek van Dijk
Gino M. M. J. Kerkhoffs
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3480-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 4/2016 Go to the issue

Ankle

Evidence-based indications for hindfoot endoscopy

Ankle

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Persian Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score

Ankle

Iatrogenic articular cartilage injuries during ankle arthroscopy

Ankle

Peroneal tendons well vascularized: results from a cadaveric study

Ankle

Surface electromyography and plantar pressure during walking in young adults with chronic ankle instability

Ankle

How to drill the talar tunnel in ATFL reconstruction?