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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 3/2018

Open Access 01-03-2018 | Ankle

The Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) in the Dutch population with and without complaints of ankle instability

Authors: Gwendolyn Vuurberg, Lana Kluit, C. Niek van Dijk

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a translated Dutch version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) and test its psychometric properties in a Dutch population with foot and ankle complaints.

Methods

The CAIT was translated into the Dutch language using a forward–backward translation design. Of the 130 subsequent patients visiting the outpatient clinic for foot and ankle complaints who were asked to fill out a questionnaire containing the CAIT, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the numeric rating scale (NRS) pain, 98 completed the questionnaire. After a 1-week period, patients were asked to fill out a second questionnaire online containing the CAIT and NRS pain. This second questionnaire was completed by 70 patients. With these data, the construct validity, test–retest reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, and ceiling and floor effects were assessed. Additionally, a cut-off value to discriminate between stable and unstable ankles, in patients with ankle complaints, was calculated.

Results

Construct validity showed moderate correlations between the CAIT and FAOS subscales (Spearman’s correlation coefficient (SCC) = 0.36–0.43), and the NRS pain (SCC = −0.55). The cut-off value was found at 11.5 points of the total CAIT score (range 0–30). Test–retest reliability showed to be excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.94. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.86). No ceiling or floor effects were detected.

Conclusion

Based on the results, the Dutch version of the CAIT is a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess ankle instability in the Dutch population and is able to differentiate between a functionally unstable and stable ankle. The tool is the first suitable tool to objectify the severity of ankle instability specific complaints and assess change in the Dutch population.
Level of evidence II.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ajis A, Younger AS, Maffulli N (2006) Anatomic repair for chronic lateral ankle instability. Foot Ankle Clin 11(3):539–545CrossRefPubMed
2.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24):3186–3191CrossRefPubMed
3.
Carcia CR, Martin RL, Drouin JM (2008) Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train 43(2):179–183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Cruz-Diaz D, Hita-Contreras F, Lomas-Vega R, Osuna-Perez MC, Martinez-Amat A (2013) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT): an instrument to assess unilateral chronic ankle instability. Clin Rheumatol 32(1):91–98CrossRefPubMed
5.
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(12):1260–1268CrossRefPubMed
6.
De Noronha M, Refshauge KM, Kilbreath SL, Figueiredo VG (2008) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT). Disabil Rehabil 30(26):1959–1965CrossRefPubMed
7.
Docherty CL, Gansneder BM, Arnold BL, Hurwitz SR (2006) Development and reliability of the ankle instability instrument. J Athl Train 41(2):154–158PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Doherty C, Delahunt E, Caulfield B, Hertel J, Ryan J, Bleakley C (2014) The incidence and prevalence of ankle sprain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective epidemiological studies. Sports Med 44(1):123–140CrossRefPubMed
9.
Eechaute C, Vaes P, Duquet W (2008) The chronic ankle instability scale: clinimetric properties of a multidimensional, patient-assessed instrument. Phys Ther Sport 9(2):57–66CrossRefPubMed
10.
Eechaute C, Vaes P, Van Aerschot L, Asman S, Duquet W (2007) The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
Hertel J (2002) Functional anatomy, pathomechanics, and pathophysiology of lateral ankle instability. J Athl Train 37(4):364–375PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Hiller CE, Refshauge KM, Bundy AC, Herbert RD, Kilbreath SL (2006) The Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool: a report of validity and reliability testing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(9):1235–1241CrossRefPubMed
14.
Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG (2003) Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th edn, vol 663. Houghton MiZin
15.
Ko J, Rosen AB, Brown CN (2015) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Int J Sports Phys Ther 10(7):1007–1014PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perrin EB, Roberts JS (1996) Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 18(5):979–992CrossRefPubMed
17.
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(11):968–983CrossRefPubMed
18.
Rodriguez-Fernandez AL, Rebollo-Roldan J, Jimenez-Rejano JJ, Gueita-Rodriguez J (2015) Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Disabil Rehabil 37(20):1888–1894CrossRefPubMed
19.
Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J (2001) Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 22(10):788–794CrossRefPubMed
20.
Ross SE, Guskiewicz KM, Gross MT, Yu B (2008) Assessment tools for identifying functional limitations associated with functional ankle instability. J Athl Train 43(1):44–50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Sierevelt IN, Beimers L, van Bergen CJ, Haverkamp D, Terwee CB, Kerkhoffs GM (2015) Validation of the Dutch language version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(8):2413–2419CrossRefPubMed
22.
Simon J, Donahue M, Docherty C (2012) Development of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI). Foot Ankle Int 33(9):755–763CrossRefPubMed
23.
Straus SER, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2011) Evidence based medicine: how to practice and teach EbM. Chapter 3. Diagnosis and screening, 4th edn. Churchill Livingston Elsevier, Edinburgh
24.
Tanen L, Docherty CL, Van Der Pol B, Simon J, Schrader J (2014) Prevalence of chronic ankle instability in high school and division I athletes. Foot Ankle Spec 7(1):37–44CrossRefPubMed
25.
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(1):34–42CrossRefPubMed
26.
van den Akker-Scheek I, Seldentuis A, Reininga IH, Stevens M (2013) Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
van Rijn RM, van Os AG, Bernsen RM, Luijsterburg PA, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM (2008) What is the clinical course of acute ankle sprains? A systematic literature review. Am J Med 121(4):324–331CrossRefPubMed
28.
Weel H, Zwiers R, Azim D, Sierevelt IN, Haverkamp D, van Dijk CN, Kerkhoffs GM (2016) Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(4):1348–1354CrossRefPubMed
29.
Wright CJ, Arnold BL, Ross SE, Linens SW (2014) Recalibration and validation of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool cutoff score for individuals with chronic ankle instability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 95(10):1853–1859CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) in the Dutch population with and without complaints of ankle instability
Authors
Gwendolyn Vuurberg
Lana Kluit
C. Niek van Dijk
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4350-4

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 3/2018 Go to the issue

Sports Medicine

Transfer of improved movement technique after receiving verbal external focus and video instruction

Erratum

Erratum to: Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction in combination with a modified grammont technique leads to favorable mid-term results in adolescents with recurrent patellofemoral dislocations

Knee

YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction

Knee

Sport-specific outcomes after isolated meniscal repair: a systematic review

Sports Medicine

Muscle injuries of the dominant or non-dominant leg in male football players at elite level

Shoulder

Arthroscopic suture bridge fixation technique with multiple crossover ties for posterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture