Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the Dutch language version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score

  • Ankle
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop a Dutch language version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS-DLV) and evaluate its measurement properties according to the definitions of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN).

Methods

After a standard forward–backward translation procedure, the Dutch version of the FAOS was evaluated for reliability and validity in 110 patients with various hind foot and ankle complaints. Reliability was evaluated by calculation of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency, and the smallest detectable change (SDC). Construct validity of the FAOS was assessed by calculation of Spearman’s correlation coefficients with similar and dissimilar domains of the SF-36 health survey, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle and Hindfoot Scale, and visual analogue scales for pain and disability. Dimensionality was tested with confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

Reliability of the FAOS-DLV was good. The ICC of the subscales ranged from 0.83 to 0.88. The minimal value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.76. The SDC at individual level ranged from 18 to 21 and at group level between 2.1 and 2.5. Construct validity was supported by confirmation of 85 % of the hypothesized correlations. Unidimensionality of the FAOS-DLV domains was moderate.

Conclusion

The Dutch version of the FAOS seems to have acceptable measurement properties. The questionnaire can be used for functional assessment of patients with varying hindfoot and ankle symptoms. It is, however, more suitable for clinical evaluation at group level than for monitoring a specific patient.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic study, Level I.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, Sprangers MA, Te Velde A, Verrips E (1998) Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1055–1068

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Button G, Pinney S (2004) A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int 25:521–525

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen L, Lyman S, Do H, Karlsson J, Adam SP, Young E, Deland JT, Ellis SJ (2012) Validation of Foot and Ankle Outcome Score for hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Int 33:1145–1155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. De Boer MR, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Moll AC, Völker-Dieben HJM, van Rens GHMB (2005) Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:1260–1268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Groot IB, Favejee MM, Reijman M, Verhaar JA, Terwee CB (2008) The Dutch version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score: a validation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:16

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. De Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Favejee M, Roos EM, Verhaar JAN (2007) Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthr Cartil 15:104–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM (2006) When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1033–1039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM (2006) Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:54

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 8:6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1417–1432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hu L, Bentler P (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M (1994) Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 15:349–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mani SB, Brown HC, Nair P, Chen L, Do HT, Lyman S, Deland JT, Ellis SJ (2013) Validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score in Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity. Foot Ankle Int 34:1140–1146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Lalonde KA, Conti S (2006) Current concepts review: foot and ankle outcome instruments. Foot Ankle Int 27:383–390

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 19:539–549

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Negahban H, Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Sohani SM, Askari M, Fanian H, Parnianpour M (2010) Reliability and validity of the foot and ankle outcome score: a validation study from Iran. Clin Rheumatol 29:479–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J (2001) Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 22:788–794

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS (1998) Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8:439–448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a Review. J Educ Res 99:323–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Streiner DL, Norman GR (2008) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. In: 2nd (ed) Oxford University Press, New York

  25. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2012) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 21:651–657

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL, De Boer MR, De Vet HCW (2009) Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1062–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 

  29. Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19:231–240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Marlijn de Beer for her outstanding work in patient recruitment and data management, and John D. King for reading and editing the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    I. N. Sierevelt & D. Haverkamp

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Research Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    L. Beimers, C. J. A. van Bergen & G. M. M. J. Kerkhoffs

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    C. B. Terwee

Authors
  1. I. N. Sierevelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Beimers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. J. A. van Bergen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Haverkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. B. Terwee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. M. M. J. Kerkhoffs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. N. Sierevelt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sierevelt, I.N., Beimers, L., van Bergen, C.J.A. et al. Validation of the Dutch language version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23, 2413–2419 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3017-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3017-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation