Thai version of the foot function index: a cross-cultural adaptation with reliability and validity evaluation

Sunee Bovonsunthonchai, Suthasinee Thong-On, Roongtiwa Vachalathiti, Warinda Intiravoranont, Sarawut Suwannarat, Richard Smith, Sunee Bovonsunthonchai, Suthasinee Thong-On, Roongtiwa Vachalathiti, Warinda Intiravoranont, Sarawut Suwannarat, Richard Smith

Abstract

Background: The study aimed to translate the foot function index (FFI) questionnaire to Thai and to determine psychometric properties of the questionnaire among individuals with plantar foot complaints.

Methods: The Thai version of the FFI (FFI-Th) was adapted according to a forward and backward translation protocol by two independent translators and analyzed by a linguist and a committee. The FFI-Th was administered among 49 individuals with plantar foot complaints to determine internal consistency, reliability, and validity. Cronbach's alpha and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC3,1) were used to test the internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The Principal Component Analysis with varimax rotation method was used to test the factor structure and construct validity. Furthermore, the criterion validity was tested using Pearson's correlation coefficient (rp) between the FFI-Th and the visual analogue pain scale (pain-VAS) as well as the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L).

Results: The FFI-Th showed good to excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability in the total score, pain, disability, and activity limitation subscales. The Principal Component Analysis produced 4 principal factors from the FFI-Th items. Criterion validity of the FFI-Th total score showed moderate to strong correlations with pain-VAS and EQ-5D-5L, and EQ-VAS scores.

Conclusion: The FFI-Th was a reliable and valid questionnaire to assess the foot function in a Thai population.

Trial registration: NCT03161314 (08/05/2017).

Keywords: Cross-cultural adaptation; Foot function index; Reliability; Validity.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© The Author(s) 2020.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the translation procedure
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Scree plot of the exploratory factor analysis

References

    1. Menz HB, Morris ME, Lord SR. Foot and ankle risk factors for falls in older people: a prospective study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61(8):866–870. doi: 10.1093/gerona/61.8.866.
    1. Menz HB. Biomechanics of the ageing foot and ankle: a mini-review. Gerontology. 2015;61(4):381–388. doi: 10.1159/000368357.
    1. Leveille SG, Jones RN, Kiely DK, Hausdorff JM, Shmerling RH, Guralnik JM, Kiel DP, Lipsitz LA, Bean JF. Chronic musculoskeletal pain and the occurrence of falls in an older population. JAMA. 2009;302(20):2214–2221. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1738.
    1. Gill TK, Menz HB, Landorf KB, Arnold JB, Taylor AW, Hill CL. Predictors of foot pain in the community: the north West Adelaide health study. J Foot Ankle Res. 2016;9:23. doi: 10.1186/s13047-016-0150-9.
    1. Hill CL, Gill TK, Menz HB, Taylor AW. Prevalence and correlates of foot pain in a population-based study: the north West Adelaide health study. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008;1(1):2. doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-1-2.
    1. Butterworth PA, Landorf KB, Smith SE, Menz HB. The association between body mass index and musculoskeletal foot disorders: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2012;13(7):630–642. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.00996.x.
    1. Dufour AB, Losina E, Menz HB, LaValley MP, Hannan MT. Obesity, foot pain and foot disorders in older men and women. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2017;11(4):445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2016.11.001.
    1. Chaiwanichsiri D, Janchai S, Tantisiriwat N. Foot disorders and falls in older persons. Gerontology. 2009;55(3):296–302. doi: 10.1159/000181149.
    1. Awale A, Dufour AB, Katz P, Menz HB, Hannan MT. Link between foot pain severity and prevalence of depressive symptoms. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016;68(6):871–876. doi: 10.1002/acr.22779.
    1. Menz HB. Chronic foot pain in older people. Maturitas. 2016;91:110–114. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.06.011.
    1. Picavet HS, Schouten JS. Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences, consequences and risk groups, the DMC(3)-study. Pain. 2003;102(1–2):167–178. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00372-x.
    1. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The foot function index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(6):561–570. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90220-4.
    1. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Mazza J, Stuck RM. A review of the foot function index and the foot function index - revised. J Foot Ankle Res. 2013;6(1):5. doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-6-5.
    1. Saag KG, Saltzman CL, Brown CK, Budiman-Mak E. The foot function index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot Ankle Int. 1996;17(8):506–510. doi: 10.1177/107110079601700814.
    1. Powell M, Seid M, Szer IS. Efficacy of custom foot orthotics in improving pain and functional status in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomized trial. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(5):943–950.
    1. Vetrano M, Vulpiani MC, Erroi D, Vadala A, Ferretti A, Saraceni VM. Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability of the Italian version of the foot function index (FFI-I) for patients with plantar fasciitis. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2014;54(5):636–643.
    1. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Huber M, Rippstein PF. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the foot function index for use in German-speaking patients with foot complaints. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(12):1222–1228. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2008.1222.
    1. Wu SH, Liang HW, Hou WH. Reliability and validity of the Taiwan Chinese version of the foot function index. J Formos Med Assoc. 2008;107(2):111–118. doi: 10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60124-2.
    1. Gonzalez-Sanchez M, Ruiz-Munoz M, Li GZ, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Chinese cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the foot function index as tool to measure patients with foot and ankle functional limitations. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(17):2056–2061. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1325944.
    1. Martinelli N, Scotto GM, Sartorelli E, Bonifacini C, Bianchi A, Malerba F. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Italian version of the foot function index in patients with foot and ankle diseases. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(1):277–284. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0435-4.
    1. Venditto T, Tognolo L, Rizzo RS, Iannuccelli C, Di Sante L, Trevisan M, Maggiolini FR, Santilli V, Ioppolo F. 17-Italian foot function index with numerical rating scale: development, reliability, and validity of a modified version of the original foot function index. Foot (Edinb) 2015;25(1):12–18. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2014.09.004.
    1. Paez-Moguer J, Budiman-Mak E, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the foot function index to Spanish. Foot Ankle Surg. 2014;20(1):34–39. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2013.09.005.
    1. Yi LC, Staboli IM, Kamonseki DH, Budiman-Mak E, Arie EK. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of FFI to Brazilian Portuguese version: FFI - Brazil. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2015. 10.1016/j.rbr.2014.11.004.
    1. Jorgensen JE, Andreasen J, Rathleff MS. Translation and validation of the Danish foot function index (FFI-DK) Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(4):e408–e413. doi: 10.1111/sms.12331.
    1. Anaforoglu Kulunkoglu B, Firat N, Yildiz NT, Alkan A. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the foot function index in patients with foot disorders. Turk J Med Sci. 2018;48(3):476–483. doi: 10.3906/sag-1705-143.
    1. Mousavian A, Mohammadi A, Seyed-Hosseinian SH, Shahpari O, Elahpour N, Orooji A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Moradi A. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the foot function index in patients with foot disorders. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2019;7(3):291–296.
    1. Srimakarat P, Jaroenarpornwatana A, Janchai S, Tantisiriwat N. Reliability and validity of foot function index Thai version [FFI-TH] J Med Assoc Thail. 2018;101(2):253–260.
    1. Ahlers SJ, van Gulik L, van der Veen AM, van Dongen HP, Bruins P, Belitser SV, de Boer A, Tibboel D, Knibbe CA. Comparison of different pain scoring systems in critically ill patients in a general ICU. Crit Care. 2008;12(1):R15. doi: 10.1186/cc6789.
    1. Li L, Liu X, Herr K. Postoperative pain intensity assessment: a comparison of four scales in Chinese adults. Pain Med. 2007;8(3):223–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00296.x.
    1. Skovlund E, Flaten O. Response measures in the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia. 1995;15(6):519–522. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1995.1506519.x.
    1. Ferraz MB, Quaresma MR, Aquino LR, Atra E, Tugwell P, Goldsmith CH. Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1990;17(8):1022–1024.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25(24):3186–3191. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Pattanaphesaj J. Health-related quality of life measure (EQ-5D-5L): measurement property testing and its preference-based score in Thai population. PhD thesis. Bangkok: Mahidol University; 2014.
    1. Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet. 1974;2(7889):1127–1131. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(74)90884-8.
    1. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27(1):117–126. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9.
    1. Scott J, Huskisson EC. Graphic representation of pain. Pain. 1976;2(2):175–184. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(76)90113-5.
    1. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(12):1153–1157. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x.
    1. Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978;37(4):378–381. doi: 10.1136/ard.37.4.378.
    1. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Agel J, Beskin JL, Brage M, Guyton GP, Kadel NJ, Saltzman CL, Sands AK, Sangeorzan BJ, SooHoo NF, Stroud CC, et al. Reliability of the foot function index: a report of the AOFAS outcomes committee. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(11):962–967. doi: 10.1177/107110070502601112.
    1. Kuyvenhoven MM, Gorter KJ, Zuithoff P, Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Post MW. The foot function index with verbal rating scales (FFI-5pt): a clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. J Rheumatol. 2002;29(5):1023–1028.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
    1. SooHoo NF, Samimi DB, Vyas RM, Botzler T. Evaluation of the validity of the foot function index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(1):38–42. doi: 10.1177/107110070602700107.
    1. Williams AE, O'Neill TW, Mercer S, Toro B, Nester CJ. Foot pathology in patients with Paget's disease of bone. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2006;96(3):226–231. doi: 10.7547/0960226.
    1. Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D) Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36(5):551–559. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/36.5.551.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren