Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective is to develop a Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS) and to investigate its validity and reliability. The Turkish version of FAOS was developed after the translation and back-translation. The translated version was pretested on 20 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Then, the Turkish FAOS was administered to 55 patients having foot and ankle problems. They were also evaluated by using the four subscales of the Turkish version of AIMS2, and the Turkish version of SF-36 questionnaire to test validity. Fifty patients filled out the FAOS for second time to determine test–retest reliability. Construct validity was investigated with use of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Test–retest reliability was assessed with use of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha score. The psychometric properties of the Turkish FAOS were generally similar to the original FAOS. The random ICC for the five subscales ranged from 0.70 to 0.96. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranged from 0.79 to 0.97. Construct validity of the FAOS was good. The Turkish FAOS correlated with the SF-36 and AIMS2 scales. The Turkish version of FAOS was valid and reliable instrument to assess the foot and ankle related problems. However, to assess its responsiveness further studies are needed.

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. Bálint GP, Korda J, Hangody L et al (2003) Foot and ankle disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 17:87–111. doi:10.1016/S1521-6942(02)00103-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Paige NM, Nouvong A (2006) The top 10 things foot and ankle specialist wish every primary care physician knew. Mayo Clin Proc 81:818–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. WHO (2001) ICF–international classification of functioning, disability and health. WHO Library, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  4. Eechaute C, Vaes P, Van Aerschot L et al (2007) The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:6. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rozzi SL, Lephart SM, Sterner R et al (1999) Balance training for persons with functionally unstable ankles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 29:478–486

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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  Google Scholar 

  7. Martin RL, Irrgang J, Burdett RG et al (2005) Evidence of validity for the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int 26:968–982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roos EM, Brandsson MD, Karlsson J (2001) Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score. Foot Ankle Int 22:788–794

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS et al (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)—development of a self administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Atamaz F, Hepguler S, Oncu J (2005) Translation and validation of the Turkish version of the arthritis impact measurement scales 2 in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 32:1331–1336

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kocyigit H, Aydemir O, Fisek G et al (1999) Kısa form 36 (KF-36)’nın Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi 12:102–106

    Google Scholar 

  12. Meenan RF, Mason JH, Anderson JJ et al (1992) AIMS2. The content and properties of a revised and expanded arthritis impact measurement scales health status questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 35:1–10. doi:10.1002/art.1780350102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ware JE, Sherboume CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). 1. Conceptual-framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483. doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test–retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19:231–240. doi:10.1519/15184.1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P et al (2007) A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 39:155–164. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG (1998) Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences, 5th edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  17. McHorney CA, Tarloy AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status survey adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307. doi:10.1007/BF01593882

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ et al (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2(1–4):1–74

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest regarding our article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Izmir Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey

    Altınay Göksel Karatepe, Rezzan Günaydın, Taciser Kaya, Uğur Karlıbaş & Gülriz Özbek

  2. Izmir Bozyaka Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi, Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Klinigi, Bozyaka, Izmir, Turkey

    Altınay Göksel Karatepe

Authors
  1. Altınay Göksel Karatepe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rezzan Günaydın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taciser Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Uğur Karlıbaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gülriz Özbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Altınay Göksel Karatepe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Göksel Karatepe, A., Günaydın, R., Kaya, T. et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Rheumatol Int 30, 169–173 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-009-0929-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-009-0929-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation