Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 923–927 | Cite as

Italian translation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire, with re-assessment of reliability and validity

  • Andrea Marinozzi
  • Nicolò MartinelliEmail author
  • Manlio Panascì
  • Francesco Cancilleri
  • Edoardo Franceschetti
  • Bruno Vincenzi
  • Alberto Di Martino
  • Vincenzo Denaro
Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

To cross-culturally adapt and validate the Italian version of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in patients affected by hallux valgus.

Methods

The MOXFQ was translated into Italian and culturally adapted following the forward and backward translation method. A sample of 172 patients with hallux valgus was asked to fill in the MOXFQ and the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). Two-week retest was performed on a random sub-sample of 40 patients. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Construct validity was assessed with the use of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, using a priori hypothesized correlations with SF-36 domains.

Results

The internal consistency reliability was acceptable for all MOXFQ domains (Pain, Walking/standing and Social interaction) with Cronbachs’ alpha coefficients ranging from 0.72 to 0.83. The assessment of test–retest reliability reveals satisfactory values with ICCs ranging from 0.85 to 0.92. Construct validity was supported by the presence of all the hypothesized correlation, with the exception of Italian Walking/standing domain with the SF-36 Role-Physical domain (ρ = −0.29).

Conclusions

The Italian version of MOXFQ is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating foot pain and functional status in patients affected by hallux valgus.

Keywords

Hallux valgus MOXFQ Validation Pain 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Mrs. Anna Simonelli for her help in preparing this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Dawson, J., Thorogood, M., Marks, S. A., Juszczak, E., Dodd, C., Lavis, G., et al. (2002). The prevalence of foot problems in older women: A cause for concern. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 24, 77–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leveille, S. G., Guralnik, J. M., Ferrucci, L., Hirsch, R., Simonsick, E., & Hochberg, M. C. (1998). Foot pain and disability in older women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 148, 657–665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferrari, J., Higgins, J. P., & Prior, T. D. (2004). Interventions for treating hallux valgus (abductovalgus) and bunions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, CD000964.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 International, 25, 521–525.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dawson, J., Coffey, J., Doll, H., Lavis, G., Cooke, P., Herron, M., et al. (2006). A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: Validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1211–1222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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, 1417–1432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apolone, G., & Mosconi, P. (1998). The Italian SF-36 health survey: Translation, validation and norming. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1025–1036.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2004). Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Health Services Research Laboratory, University of Siena, Italy. http://www.publichealth.it/sf36/sf36corpo.htm. Accessed July 2008.
  11. 11.
    Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psycometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Irrgang, J. J., & Anderson, A. F. (2002). Development and validation of health related quality of life measures for the knee. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 402, 95–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Froberg, D., & Kane, R. (1989). Methodology for measuring health state preferences. II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 459–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amadio, P. C. (1993). Outcomes measurements. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Am], 75, 1583–1584.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Marinozzi
    • 1
  • Nicolò Martinelli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manlio Panascì
    • 1
  • Francesco Cancilleri
    • 1
  • Edoardo Franceschetti
    • 1
  • Bruno Vincenzi
    • 2
  • Alberto Di Martino
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Denaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma SurgeryCampus Bio-Medico UniversityRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of OncologyCampus Bio-Medico UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations