Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 479–486 | Cite as

Reliability and validity of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score: a validation study from Iran

  • Hossein Negahban
  • Masood Mazaheri
  • Mahyar Salavati
  • Soheil Mansour Sohani
  • Marjan Askari
  • Hossein Fanian
  • Mohamad Parnianpour
Original Article

Abstract

The aims of this study were to culturally adapt and validate the Persian version of Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and present data on its psychometric properties for patients with different foot and ankle problems. The Persian version of FAOS was developed after a standard forward–backward translation and cultural adaptation process. The sample included 93 patients with foot and ankle disorders who were asked to complete two questionnaires: FAOS and Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). To determine test–retest reliability, 60 randomly chosen patients completed the FAOS again 2 to 6 days after the first administration. Test–retest reliability and internal consistency were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. To evaluate convergent and divergent validity of FAOS compared to similar and dissimilar concepts of SF-36, the Spearman’s rank correlation was used. Dimensionality was determined by assessing item–subscale correlation corrected for overlap. The results of test–retest reliability show that all the FAOS subscales have a very high ICC, ranging from 0.92 to 0.96. The minimum Cronbach’s alpha level of 0.70 was exceeded by most subscales. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient for convergent construct validity fell within 0.32 to 0.58 for the main hypotheses presented a priori between FAOS and SF-36 subscales. For dimensionality, the minimum Spearman’s correlation coefficient of 0.40 was exceeded by most items. In conclusion, the results of our study show that the Persian version of FAOS seems to be suitable for Iranian patients with various foot and ankle problems especially lateral ankle sprain. Future studies are needed to establish stronger psychometric properties for patients with different foot and ankle problems.

Keywords

FAOS Persian version Reliability Validity 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This project was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Studies and Research Program, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Disclosures

None of the authors have any financial or other interests relating to the manuscript to be submitted for publication in Clinical Rheumatology.

References

  1. 1.
    Goksel Karatepe A, Gunaydin R, Kaya T, Karlibas U, Ozbek G (2009) Validation of the Turkish-version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Rheumatol Int 30:169–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paige NM, Nouvong A (2006) The top 10 things foot and ankle specialists wish every primary care physician knew. Mayo Clin Proc 81:818–822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akbari M, Karimi H, Farahini H, Faghihzadeh S (2006) Balance problems after unilateral lateral ankle sprains. J Rehabil Res Dev 43:819–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams GN, Molloy JM, DeBerardino TM, Arciero RA, Taylor DC (2003) Evaluation of the Sports Ankle Rating System in young, athletic individuals with acute lateral ankle sprains. Foot Ankle Int 24:274–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hale SA, Hertel J (2005) Reliability and sensitivity of the foot and ankle disability index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train 40:35–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF (2002) Development and validation of health-related quality of life measures for the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 402:95–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 8:6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J (2001) Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 22:788–794PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplege A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Gandek B, Wagner A, Aaronson N, Bech P, Fukuhara S, Kaasa S, Ware JE (1998) Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 51:913–923CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salavati M, Mazaheri M, Negahban H, Sohani SM, Ebrahimian MR, Ebrahimi I, Kazemnejad A, Salavati M (2008) Validation of a Persian-version of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Iranians with knee injuries. Osteoarthr Cartil 16:1178–1182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montazeri A, Goshtasebi A, Vahdaninia M, Gandek B (2005) The short form health survey (SF-36): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Qual Life Res 14:875–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suk M, Hanson BP, Norvell DC, Helfet DL (2009) Musculoskeletal outcomes measures and instruments, vol 1. AO, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fayer PM, Machin D (2000) Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test–retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19:231–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corriveau H, Hebert R, Prince F, Raiche M (2000) Intrasession reliability of the “center of pressure minus center of mass” variable of postural control in the healthy elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81:45–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Groot IB, Favajee MM, Reijman M, Verhaar JA, Terwee CB (2008) Dutch version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score: a validation study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 6:16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 8:439–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hossein Negahban
    • 1
  • Masood Mazaheri
    • 2
  • Mahyar Salavati
    • 3
  • Soheil Mansour Sohani
    • 4
  • Marjan Askari
    • 5
  • Hossein Fanian
    • 6
  • Mohamad Parnianpour
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Physical Therapy, School of Rehabilitation SciencesAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran
  2. 2.Musculoskeletal Research Center, School of Rehabilitation SciencesIsfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran
  3. 3.Department of Physical TherapyUniversity of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation SciencesTehranIran
  4. 4.Department of Physical Therapy, School of Rehabilitation SciencesIran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  5. 5.Department of Physical Therapy, School of Rehabilitation SciencesIsfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran
  6. 6.Department of Orthopedics, School of MedicineIsfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran
  7. 7.Department of Information and Industrial EngineeringHanyang UniversityAnsanRepublic of Korea
  8. 8.Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations