Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM)

  • Validation Studies
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To translate and culturally adapt the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) into Turkish and assess the psychometric properties of the translated version.

Methods

The FAAM was translated into Turkish according to Beaton’s recommendations and it is called FAAM-T. Ninety-eight patients (39 males, mean ± SD age 35.0 ± 14.0 years; range 16–71 years) with different foot and ankle complaints were included, and the score was completed twice by each participant after 7 days of the first assessment to assess test–retest reliability based on the inter-rater correlation coefficient, whereas Cronbach’s alpha evaluated internal consistency. External validity was evaluated with correlations between the FAAM-T, Foot Function Index (FFI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36). The distribution of floor and ceiling effects was determined.

Results

The test–retest reliability was 0.90 for both FAAM-T subscales. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.95 and 0.91 for FAAM-T activity of daily living (ADL) and FAAM-T Sport subscales, respectively. The FAAM-T ADL and Sport subscales demonstrated very good correlation with the FFI (r = 0.70 and 0.63, respectively). The FAAM-T ADL and Sport subscales had a high level of association with physical functioning and the physical component scale (r = 0.71, r = 0.70 and r = 0.51, r = 0.55, respectively; P = 0.001) of the SF-36. The weakest associations were found between the FAAM-T ADL, FAAM-T Sport subscales and the SF-36 the vitality (r = 0.27, P = 0.008 and r = 0.28, P = 0.01, respectively).

Conclusions

The study provides preliminary evidence that the FAAM-T is reliable, valid and responsive outcome measurement of patients with foot and ankle pathologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ (2007) A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37(2):72–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Wearing S, Baglioni T (1998) Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 88:419–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL (1999) The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther 79:371–383

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE (1991) The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol 44:561–570

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin RL, Burdett RG, Irrgang JJ (1999) Development of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 29:A32–A33

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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 26:968–983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Karatepe AG, Günaydin R, Kaya T, Karlibaş U, Özbek G (2009) Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Rheumatol Int 30:169–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 45:785–790

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 8(12):40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. Osteoarthr Cartil 18:755–759

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sartorio F, Vercelli S, Bravini E, Bargeri S, Moroso M, Plebani G, Ferriero G (2014) Foot and ankle ability measure: cross-cultural translation and validation of the Italian version of the ADL module (FAAM-I/ADL). Med Lav 105:357–365

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Uematsu D, Suzuki H, Sasaki S, Nagano Y, Shinozuka N, Sunagawa N, Fukubayashi T (2015) Evidence of validity for the Japanese version of the foot and ankle ability measure. J Athl Train 50:65–70

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3186–3191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, Ölmez N, Memiş A (1999) Reliability and validity of Turkish version of Short Form 36: a study of patients with rheumatoid disorder. Drug Ther 12:102–106

    Google Scholar 

  16. Yalıman ŞE, Eskiyurt N, Budiman-Mak E (2014) Turkish translation and adaptation of foot function index in patients with plantar fasciitis. Turk J Phys Med Rehab 60:212–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Bouter LM (2003) Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1137–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kane RL (1997) Outcome measures. In: Understanding health care outcomes research. Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, pp 17–18

  21. 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 117:412–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weel H, Zwiers R, Azim D, Sierevelt IN, Haverkamp D, van Dijk CN, Kerkhoffs GM (2014) Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the foot and ankle ability measure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(4):1348–1354

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Istanbul University, 34740, Bakirkoy, Istanbul, Turkey

    Derya Çelik

  2. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Melih Malkoç

  3. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    RobRoy Martin

Authors
  1. Derya Çelik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melih Malkoç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. RobRoy Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derya Çelik.

Ethics declarations

Ethical standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çelik, D., Malkoç, M. & Martin, R. Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Rheumatol Int 36, 1469–1476 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3485-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3485-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation