Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-02-2014 | Brief Communication

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Foot Function Index in patients with foot and ankle diseases

Auteurs: Nicolò Martinelli, Gennaro Maria Scotto, Elena Sartorelli, Carlo Bonifacini, Alberto Bianchi, Francesco Malerba

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2014

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to translate the Foot Function Index (FFI) into Italian, to perform a cross-cultural adaptation and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Italian version of FFI.

Methods

The Italian FFI was developed according to the recommended forward/backward translation protocol and evaluated in patients with foot and ankle diseases. Feasibility, reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)], internal consistency [Cronbach’s alpha (CA)], construct validity (correlation with the SF-36 and a visual analogue scale (VAS) assessing for pain), responsiveness to surgery were assessed. The standardized effect size and standardized response mean were also evaluated.

Results

A total of 89 patients were recruited (mean age 51.8 ± 13.9 years, range 21–83). The Italian version of the FFI consisted in 18 items separated into a pain and disability subscales. CA value was 0.95 for both the subscales. The reproducibility was good with an ICC of 0.94 and 0.91 for pain and disability subscales, respectively. A strong correlation was found between the FFI and the scales of the SF-36 and the VAS with related content, particularly in the areas of physical function and pain was observed indicating good construct validity. After surgery, the mean FFI improved from 55.9 ± 24.8 to 32.4 ± 26.3 for the pain subscale and from 48.8 ± 28.8 to 24.9 ± 23.7 for the disability subscale (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

The Italian version of the FFI showed satisfactory psychometric properties in Italian patients with foot and ankle diseases. Further testing in different and larger samples is required in order to ensure the validity and reliability of this score.

vorige artikel The Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised: translation and psychometric evaluation in Spanish-speaking breast cancer survivors

volgende artikel Reproducibility study of Overactive Bladder Symptom Score questionnaire and its response to treatment (RESORT) in Korean population with overactive bladder symptoms

SooHoo, N. F., Shuler, M., Fleming, L. L., & American Orthopaedic Foot Ankle Society. (2003). Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS clinical rating systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot and Ankle International, 24(1), 50–55.PubMed

Budiman-Mak, E., Conrad, K. J., & Roach, K. E. (1991). The Foot Function Index: A measure of foot pain and disability. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44(6), 561–570.PubMedCrossRef

Naal, F. D., Impellizzeri, F. M., Huber, M., & Rippstein, P. F. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index for use in German-speaking patients with foot complaints. Foot and Ankle International, 29(12), 1222–1228.PubMedCrossRef

Kuyvenhoven, M. M., Gorter, K. J., Zuithoff, P., Budiman-Mak, E., Conrad, K. J., & Post, M. W. (2002). The Foot Function Index with verbal rating scales (FFI-5pt): A clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. Journal of Rheumatology, 29(5), 1023–1028.PubMed

SooHoo, N. F., Vyas, R., & Samimi, D. (2006). Responsiveness of the Foot Function Index, AOFAS clinical rating systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot and Ankle International, 27(11), 930–934.PubMed

Marinozzi, A., Martinelli, N., Panascì, M., Cancilleri, F., Franceschetti, E., Vincenzi, B., et al. (2009). Italian translation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire, with re-assessment of reliability and validity. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 923–927.PubMedCrossRef

Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRef

Apolone, G., & Mosconi, P. (1998). The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1025–1036.PubMedCrossRef

Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy. http://crc.marionegri.it/qdv/questionari/sf36/sf36v1ita.htm. Date last accessed February 2012.

10.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRef

11.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Fleiss, J. L., & Shrout, P. E. (1977). The effects of measurement errors on some multivariate procedures. American Journal of Public Health, 67(12), 1188–1191.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Ravaud, P., Giraudeau, B., Auleley, G. R., Edouard-Noël, R., Dougados, M., & Chastang, C. (1999). Assessing smallest detectable change over time in continuous structural outcome measures: Application to radiological change in knee osteoarthritis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(12), 1225–1230.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Dawson, J., Doll, H., Coffey, J., Jenkinson, C., & Oxford and Birmingham Foot and Ankle Clinical Research Group. (2007). Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 15, 918–931.PubMedCrossRef

16.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Lu, J. F., & Sherbournem, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(5), 459–468.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Agel, J., Beskin, J. L., Brage, M., Guyton, G. P., Kadel, N. J., Saltzman, C. L., et al. (2005). Reliability of the Foot Function Index: A report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee. Foot and Ankle International, 26(11), 962–967.PubMed

19.

Saag, K. G., Saltzman, C. L., Brown, C. K., & Budiman-Mak, E. (1996). The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: Evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot & Ankle International, 17(8), 506–510.

20.

Budiman-Mak, E., Conrad, K. J., Stuck, R., & Matters, M. (2006). Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index. Foot and Ankle International, 27(7), 519–527.PubMed

Titel: Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Foot Function Index in patients with foot and ankle diseases
Auteurs: Nicolò Martinelli
Gennaro Maria Scotto
Elena Sartorelli
Carlo Bonifacini
Alberto Bianchi
Francesco Malerba
Publicatiedatum: 01-02-2014
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0435-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2014

Psychometric analysis of the Swedish translation of the WHO well-being index

Should patients perception of health status be integrated in the prognostic assessment of heart failure patients? A prospective study

Necessary and sufficient causes of participation post-stroke: practical and philosophical perspectives

Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Reproducibility study of Overactive Bladder Symptom Score questionnaire and its response to treatment (RESORT) in Korean population with overactive bladder symptoms

The Functional Living Index-Cancer is a reliable and valid instrument in Chinese cancer patients