Skip to main content

Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy volume 24, pages 1348–1354 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to develop a Dutch language version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) and evaluate its measurement properties according to the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) definitions.

Methods

A forward–backward translation procedure was performed and subsequently the Dutch version of the FAAM was evaluated for its reliability and validity in 369 patients with a variety of foot and ankle complaints. The reliability was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, test–retest reliability), Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency), the standard error of measurement and the minimal detectable change (MDC). Additionally, this was done for athletes. The construct validity was assessed by the use of Spearman’s correlation coefficient between FAAM domains and similar and contradictory domains of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, Short Form 36 and the Numeric Rating Scale for pain.

Results

The ICC of the subscales ranged from 0.62 to 0.86. Cronbach’s alpha’s minimum was 0.97. At individual level, the MDC ranged from 23.9 to 44.7 and at group level from 2.77 to 4.32. In the subgroup of athletes, the reliability was higher. The hypothesized correlations of the construct validity were supported by an 80 % confirmation rate.

Conclusion

The Dutch version of the FAAM met adequate measurement properties, although the reliability is not optimal. The FAAM-Sport subscale is more useful in athletes and the FAAM-Sport % seems not to contribute. In athletes with various foot and ankle symptoms, the FAAM can be used for functional assessment and follow-up at group level. For the general population, the FAAM is less appropriate.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic study, Level I.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 12:40

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cronbach LJ, Warrington WG (1951) Time-limit tests: estimating their reliability and degree of speeding. Psychometrika 16:167–188

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. de Boer MR, de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Moll AC, Volker-Dieben HJ, van Rens GH (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 

  5. 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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. de Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Favejee M, Roos EM, Verhaar JA (2007) Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15:104–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Domsic RT, Saltzman CL (1998) Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int 19:466–471

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. 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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hale SA, Hertel J (2005) Reliability and sensitivity of the foot and ankle disability index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train 40:35–40

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Johanson NA, Liang MH, Daltroy L, Rudicel S, Richmond J (2004) American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:902–909

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. 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 

  15. 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 

  16. 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. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18:755–759

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (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. 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

    CAS  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. Sierevelt IN, Beimers L, van Bergen CJ, Haverkamp D, Terwee CB, Kerkhoffs GM (2014) Validation of the Dutch language version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3017-2

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ware JE Jr, 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 

  26. 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 

  27. 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 24:274–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academical Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Hanneke Weel, Ruben Zwiers, Donija Azim, C. Niek van Dijk & Gino M. M. J. Kerkhoffs

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, P.O. Box 1006, 1006 BK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Inger N. Sierevelt & Daniel Haverkamp

Authors
  1. Hanneke Weel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruben Zwiers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donija Azim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Inger N. Sierevelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Haverkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Niek van Dijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gino M. M. J. Kerkhoffs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruben Zwiers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weel, H., Zwiers, R., Azim, D. et al. Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 1348–1354 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3480-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3480-9

Keywords

  • Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM)
  • Ankle
  • Dutch translation
  • Reliability
  • Validity
  • PROM