Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research article

Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS)

Authors: Inge van den Akker-Scheek, Arnoud Seldentuis, Inge HF Reininga, Martin Stevens

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) is a patient-reported questionnaire measuring symptoms and functional limitations of the foot and ankle. Aim is to translate and culturally adapt the Dutch version of the FAOS and to investigate internal consistency, validity, repeatability and responsiveness.

Methods

According to the Cross Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures guideline, the FAOS was translated into Dutch. Eighty-nine patients who had undergone an ankle arthroscopy, ankle arthrodesis, ankle ligament reconstruction or hallux valgus correction completed the FAOS, FFI, WOMAC and SF-36 questionnaires and were included in the validity study. Sixty-five of them completed the FAOS a second time to determine repeatability. Responsiveness was analysed in an additional 15 patients who were being treated for foot or ankle problems.

Results

Internal consistency of the FAOS is high (Cronbach’s alphas varying between 0.90 and 0.96). Repeatability can be considered good, with ICC’s ranging from 0.90 to 0.96. Construct validity can be classified as good with moderate-to-high correlations between the FAOS subscales and subscales of the FFI (0.55 to 0.90), WOMAC (0.57 to 0.92) and SF-36 subscales physical functioning, pain, social functioning and role-physical (0.33 to 0.81). Low standard response means were found for responsiveness (0.0 to 0.4).

Conclusions

The results of this study show that the Dutch version of the FAOS is a reliable and valid questionnaire to assess symptoms and functional limitations of the foot and ankle.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Paige NM, Nouvong A: The top 10 things foot and ankle specialists wish every primary care physician knew. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006, 81: 818-822. 10.4065/81.6.818.CrossRefPubMed Paige NM, Nouvong A: The top 10 things foot and ankle specialists wish every primary care physician knew. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006, 81: 818-822. 10.4065/81.6.818.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Picavet HSJ, van Gils HWV, Schouten JSAG: Musculoskeletal complaints in the Dutch population - prevalence, consequences and risk groups. RIVM Report. 2000 Picavet HSJ, van Gils HWV, Schouten JSAG: Musculoskeletal complaints in the Dutch population - prevalence, consequences and risk groups. RIVM Report. 2000
3.
go back to reference Eechaute C, Vaes P, Van Aerschot L, Asman S, Duquet W: The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007, 8: 6-10.1186/1471-2474-8-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eechaute C, Vaes P, Van Aerschot L, Asman S, Duquet W: The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007, 8: 6-10.1186/1471-2474-8-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J: Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001, 22: 788-794.PubMed Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J: Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001, 22: 788-794.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998, 28: 88-96.CrossRefPubMed Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998, 28: 88-96.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Negahban H, Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Sohani SM, Askari M, Fanian H, Parnianpour M: Reliability and validity of the foot and ankle outcome score: a validation study from Iran. Clin Rheumatol. 2010, 29: 479-486. 10.1007/s10067-009-1344-3.CrossRefPubMed Negahban H, Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Sohani SM, Askari M, Fanian H, Parnianpour M: Reliability and validity of the foot and ankle outcome score: a validation study from Iran. Clin Rheumatol. 2010, 29: 479-486. 10.1007/s10067-009-1344-3.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Karatepe AG, Gunaydin R, Kaya T, Karlibas U, Ozbek G: Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Rheumatol Int. 2009, 30: 169-173. 10.1007/s00296-009-0929-0.CrossRefPubMed Karatepe AG, Gunaydin R, Kaya T, Karlibas U, Ozbek G: Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Rheumatol Int. 2009, 30: 169-173. 10.1007/s00296-009-0929-0.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Imoto AM, Peccin MS, Rodrigues R, Mizusaki JM: Translation, cultural adaptaion and validation of Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) questionnaire into Portuguese. Acta Ortop Brasil. 2009, 17: 232-235. Imoto AM, Peccin MS, Rodrigues R, Mizusaki JM: Translation, cultural adaptaion and validation of Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) questionnaire into Portuguese. Acta Ortop Brasil. 2009, 17: 232-235.
9.
go back to reference Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB: Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000, 25: 3186-3191. 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.CrossRefPubMed Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB: Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000, 25: 3186-3191. 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D: Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993, 46: 1417-1432. 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N.CrossRefPubMed Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D: Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993, 46: 1417-1432. 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Kuyvenhoven MM, Gorter KJ, Zuithoff P, Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Post MW: The foot function index with verbal rating scales (FFI-5pt): a clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. J Rheumatol. 2002, 29: 1023-1028.PubMed Kuyvenhoven MM, Gorter KJ, Zuithoff P, Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Post MW: The foot function index with verbal rating scales (FFI-5pt): a clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. J Rheumatol. 2002, 29: 1023-1028.PubMed
12.
go back to reference 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. 1988, 15: 1833-1840.PubMed 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. 1988, 15: 1833-1840.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, van der Eijken JW, Willems WJ, Heyligers IC, Voaklander DC, Kelly KD, Suarez-Almazor ME: Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004, 63: 36-42. 10.1136/ard.2002.001784.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, van der Eijken JW, Willems WJ, Heyligers IC, Voaklander DC, Kelly KD, Suarez-Almazor ME: Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004, 63: 36-42. 10.1136/ard.2002.001784.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, Sprangers MA, te Velde A, Verrips E: Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998, 51: 1055-1068. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00097-3.CrossRefPubMed Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, Sprangers MA, te Velde A, Verrips E: Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998, 51: 1055-1068. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00097-3.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW: What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable?. Injury. 2011, 42: 236-240. 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.042.CrossRefPubMed Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW: What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable?. Injury. 2011, 42: 236-240. 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.042.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007, 60: 34-42. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.CrossRefPubMed Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007, 60: 34-42. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG: Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 1998, Boston USA: Houghton MiZin Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG: Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 1998, Boston USA: Houghton MiZin
18.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 1 (8476): 307-310.CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 1 (8476): 307-310.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM: When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006, 59 (10): 1033-1039. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.015.CrossRefPubMed de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM: When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006, 59 (10): 1033-1039. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.015.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Weir JP: Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005, 19 (1): 231-240.PubMed Weir JP: Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005, 19 (1): 231-240.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988, Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988, Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
22.
go back to reference Karlsson J, Peterson L: Evaluation of ankle joint function: the use of a scoring scale. Foot. 1991, 1: 15-19. 10.1016/0958-2592(91)90006-W.CrossRef Karlsson J, Peterson L: Evaluation of ankle joint function: the use of a scoring scale. Foot. 1991, 1: 15-19. 10.1016/0958-2592(91)90006-W.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS)
Authors
Inge van den Akker-Scheek
Arnoud Seldentuis
Inge HF Reininga
Martin Stevens
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-183

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2013 Go to the issue