Evidence for validity and reliability of a French version of the FAAM

Stéphane Borloz, Xavier Crevoisier, Olivier Deriaz, Pierluigi Ballabeni, RobRoy L Martin, François Luthi, Stéphane Borloz, Xavier Crevoisier, Olivier Deriaz, Pierluigi Ballabeni, RobRoy L Martin, François Luthi

Abstract

Background: The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) is a self reported questionnaire for patients with foot and ankle disorders available in English, German, and Persian. This study plans to translate the FAAM from English to French (FAAM-F) and assess the validity and reliability of this new version.

Methods: The FAAM-F Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and sports subscales were completed by 105 French-speaking patients (average age 50.5 years) presenting various chronic foot and ankle disorders. Convergent and divergent validity was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficients between the FAAM-F subscales and the SF-36 scales: Physical Functioning (PF), Physical Component Summary (PCS), Mental Health (MH) and Mental Component Summary (MCS). Internal consistency was calculated by Cronbach's Alpha (CA). To assess test re-test reliability, 22 patients filled out the questionnaire a second time to estimate minimal detectable changes (MDC) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

Results: Correlations for FAAM-F ADL subscale were 0.85 with PF, 0.81 with PCS, 0.26 with MH, 0.37 with MCS. Correlations for FAAM-F Sports subscale were 0.72 with PF, 0.72 with PCS, 0.21 with MH, 0.29 with MCS. CA estimates were 0.97 for both subscales. Respectively for the ADL and Sports subscales, ICC were 0.97 and 0.94, errors for a single measure were 8 and 10 points at 95% confidence and the MDC values at 95% confidence were 7 and 18 points.

Conclusion: The FAAM-F is valid and reliable for the self-assessment of physical function in French-speaking patients with a wide range of chronic foot and ankle disorders.

References

    1. Fermanian J. [Validation of assessment scales in physical medicine and rehabilitation: how are psychometric properties determined?] Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2005;48(6):281–287.
    1. Bent NP, Wright CC, Rushton AB, Batt ME. Selecting outcome measures in sports medicine: a guide for practitioners using the example of anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(13):1006–1012. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.057356.
    1. Button G, Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25(8):521–525.
    1. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(2):72–84. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2403.
    1. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Lalonde KA, Conti S. Current concepts review: foot and ankle outcome instruments. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(5):383–390.
    1. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(11):968–983.
    1. Martin RL, Hutt DM, Wukich DK. Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in Diabetes Mellitus. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(4):297–302. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0297.
    1. Carcia CR, Martin RL, Drouin JM. Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2008;43(2):179–183. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.179.
    1. Nauck T, Lohrer H. 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. 2009.
    1. Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Negahban H, Sohani SM, Taghizadeh F, Feizi A, Karimi A, Parnianpour M. 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.
    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.
    1. Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N. Literature Review of Methods to Translate Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires for Use in Multinational Clinical Trials. Value in Health. 2000;11(3):509–521. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00292.x.
    1. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. Bmj. 1992;305(6846):160–164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160.
    1. Perneger TV, Leplege A, Etter JF, Rougemont A. Validation of a French-language version of the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in young healthy adults. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(8):1051–1060. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00227-H.
    1. Meng X, Roental R, Sax G. Compaing correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin. 1957;111:172–175. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996;76(4):359–365. discussion 366-358.
    1. Eechaute C, Vaes P, Van Aerschot L, Asman S, Duquet W. The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-8-6.
    1. Hambleton R, Jones R. Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Education Measurement: Issues and Practices. 1993;12:38–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00543.x.
    1. Bland J, Altman D. Cronbach's alpha. British Medical Journal. 1997;314:572.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa