Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Science 2/2013

Open Access 01-03-2013 | Original Article

Validity and reliability of a self-administered foot evaluation questionnaire (SAFE-Q)

Authors: Hisateru Niki, Shinobu Tatsunami, Naoki Haraguchi, Takafumi Aoki, Ryuzo Okuda, Yasunori Suda, Masato Takao, Yasuhito Tanaka

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Science | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) is developing a QOL questionnaire instrument for use in pathological conditions related to the foot and ankle. The main body of the outcome instrument (the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire, SAFE-Q version 2) consists of 34 questionnaire items, which provide five subscale scores (1: Pain and Pain-Related; 2: Physical Functioning and Daily Living; 3: Social Functioning; 4: Shoe-Related; and 5: General Health and Well-Being). In addition, the instrument has nine optional questionnaire items that provide a Sports Activity subscale score. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the SAFE-Q.

Patients and methods

Version 2 of the SAFE-Q was administered to 876 patients and 491 non-patients, and the test-retest reliability was evaluated for 131 patients. In addition, the SF-36 questionnaire and the JSSF Scale scoring form were administered to all of the participants. Subscale scores were scaled such that the final sum of scores ranged between zero (least healthy) to 100 (healthiest).

Results

The intraclass correlation coefficients were larger than 0.7 for all of the scores. The means of the five subscale scores were between 60 and 75. The five subscales easily separated patients from non-patients. The coefficients for the correlations of the subscale scores with the scores on the JSSF Scale and the SF-36 subscales were all highly statistically significantly greater than zero (p < 0.001). The means for the five JSSF Scale classification groups fell within a relatively narrow range, indicating that the SAFE-Q labels are sufficiently similar to permit their use for all of the JSSF Scale classifications.

Conclusion

The present study revealed that the test-retest reliability is high for each subscale. Consequently, the SAFE-Q is valid and reliable. In the future, it will be beneficial to test the responsiveness of the SAFE-Q.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Niki H, Tatsunami S, Haraguchi N, Aoki T, Okuda R, Suda Y, Takao M, Tanaka Y. Development of the patient-based outcome instrument for the foot and ankle. Part 1: project description and evaluation of the outcome instrument version 1. J Orthop Sci. 2011;16:536–55.PubMedCrossRef Niki H, Tatsunami S, Haraguchi N, Aoki T, Okuda R, Suda Y, Takao M, Tanaka Y. Development of the patient-based outcome instrument for the foot and ankle. Part 1: project description and evaluation of the outcome instrument version 1. J Orthop Sci. 2011;16:536–55.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Niki H, Tatsunami S, Haraguchi N, Aoki T, Okuda R, Suda Y, Takao M, Tanaka Y. Development of the patient-based outcome instrument for the foot and ankle. Part 2: results from the second field survey: validity of the outcome instrument for the foot and ankle version 2. J Orthop Sci. 2011;16:556–64.PubMedCrossRef Niki H, Tatsunami S, Haraguchi N, Aoki T, Okuda R, Suda Y, Takao M, Tanaka Y. Development of the patient-based outcome instrument for the foot and ankle. Part 2: results from the second field survey: validity of the outcome instrument for the foot and ankle version 2. J Orthop Sci. 2011;16:556–64.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Fukuhara S, Suzukamo Y. Manual of SF-36v2 (Japanese version). Kyoto: Institute for Health Outcomes and Process Evaluation Research; 2004. Fukuhara S, Suzukamo Y. Manual of SF-36v2 (Japanese version). Kyoto: Institute for Health Outcomes and Process Evaluation Research; 2004.
4.
go back to reference Niki H, Aoki H, Inokuchi S, Ozeki S, Kinoshita M, Kura H, Tanaka Y, Noguchi M, Nomura S, Hatori M, Tatsunami S. Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders I: development of standard rating system. J Orthop Sci. 2005;10:457–65.PubMedCrossRef Niki H, Aoki H, Inokuchi S, Ozeki S, Kinoshita M, Kura H, Tanaka Y, Noguchi M, Nomura S, Hatori M, Tatsunami S. Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders I: development of standard rating system. J Orthop Sci. 2005;10:457–65.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Niki H, Aoki H, Inokuchi S, Ozeki S, Kinoshita M, Kura H, Tanaka Y, Noguchi M, Nomura S, Hatori M, Tatsunami S. Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders II: interclinician and intraclinician reliability and validity of the newly established standard rating scales and Japanese Orthopaedic Association rating scale. J Orthop Sci. 2005;10:466–74.PubMedCrossRef Niki H, Aoki H, Inokuchi S, Ozeki S, Kinoshita M, Kura H, Tanaka Y, Noguchi M, Nomura S, Hatori M, Tatsunami S. Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders II: interclinician and intraclinician reliability and validity of the newly established standard rating scales and Japanese Orthopaedic Association rating scale. J Orthop Sci. 2005;10:466–74.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Park HM. Evaluating interrater agreement with intraclass correlation coefficient in SPICE-based software process assessment. In: IEEE, editor. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Quality Software. Washington, DC: IEEE; 2003. p. 308–14. Park HM. Evaluating interrater agreement with intraclass correlation coefficient in SPICE-based software process assessment. In: IEEE, editor. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Quality Software. Washington, DC: IEEE; 2003. p. 308–14.
7.
go back to reference Johanson NA, Liang MH, Daltroy L, Rudicel S, Richmond J. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2004;86:902–9. Johanson NA, Liang MH, Daltroy L, Rudicel S, Richmond J. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2004;86:902–9.
8.
go back to reference 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. 2005;26:968–83.PubMed 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. 2005;26:968–83.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Wearing S, Baglioni T. Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1998;88:419–28.PubMed Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Wearing S, Baglioni T. Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1998;88:419–28.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The foot function index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:561–70.PubMedCrossRef Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The foot function index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:561–70.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15:349–53.PubMedCrossRef Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15:349–53.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:474–83. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:474–83.
13.
go back to reference Group EuroQol. EuroQol; a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRef Group EuroQol. EuroQol; a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2012;94:215–21.CrossRef Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2012;94:215–21.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Garrow AP, Papageorgiou AC, Silman AJ, Thomas E, Jayson MI, Macfarlane GJ. Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess disabling foot pain. Pain. 2000;85:107–13.PubMedCrossRef Garrow AP, Papageorgiou AC, Silman AJ, Thomas E, Jayson MI, Macfarlane GJ. Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess disabling foot pain. Pain. 2000;85:107–13.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, Jenkinson C. A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:1211–22.PubMedCrossRef Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, Jenkinson C. A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:1211–22.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15:918–31.PubMedCrossRef Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15:918–31.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:72–84.PubMedCrossRef Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:72–84.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Seligson D, Gassman J, Pope M. Ankle instability: evaluation of the lateral ligaments. Am J Sports Med. 1980;8:39–42.PubMedCrossRef Seligson D, Gassman J, Pope M. Ankle instability: evaluation of the lateral ligaments. Am J Sports Med. 1980;8:39–42.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Williams GN, Molloy JM, DeBerardino TM, Arciero RA, Taylor DC. Evaluation of the sports ankle rating system in young, athletic, individuals with acute lateral ankle sprains. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24:274–82.PubMed Williams GN, Molloy JM, DeBerardino TM, Arciero RA, Taylor DC. Evaluation of the sports ankle rating system in young, athletic, individuals with acute lateral ankle sprains. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24:274–82.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Lalonde KA, Conti S. Current concept review: foot and ankle outcome instruments. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:383–90.PubMed Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Lalonde KA, Conti S. Current concept review: foot and ankle outcome instruments. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:383–90.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Validity and reliability of a self-administered foot evaluation questionnaire (SAFE-Q)
Authors
Hisateru Niki
Shinobu Tatsunami
Naoki Haraguchi
Takafumi Aoki
Ryuzo Okuda
Yasunori Suda
Masato Takao
Yasuhito Tanaka
Publication date
01-03-2013
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Science / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0949-2658
Electronic ISSN: 1436-2023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-012-0337-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

Journal of Orthopaedic Science 2/2013 Go to the issue