Hanneke Weel1, Ruben Zwiers2, Donija Azim1, Inger N Sierevelt3, Daniel Haverkamp3, C Niek van Dijk1, Gino M M J Kerkhoffs1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academical Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academical Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.zwiers@amc.uva.nl. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, P.O. Box 1006, 1006 BK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
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.
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.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: N K Aaronson; M Muller; P D Cohen; M L Essink-Bot; M Fekkes; R Sanderman; M A Sprangers; A te Velde; E Verrips Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Norman A Johanson; Matthew H Liang; Lawren Daltroy; Sally Rudicel; John Richmond Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Alberto J Pérez-Panero; María Ruiz-Muñoz; Raúl Fernández-Torres; Cynthia Formosa; Alfred Gatt; Manuel Gónzalez-Sánchez Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: I N Sierevelt; R Zwiers; W Schats; D Haverkamp; C B Terwee; P A Nolte; G M M J Kerkhoffs Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Peter A J de Leeuw; Roel P M Hendrickx; C Niek van Dijk; Sjoerd S Stufkens; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: K T M Opdam; R Zwiers; J I Wiegerinck; A E B Kleipool; R Haverlag; J C Goslings; C N van Dijk Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Pablo Cervera-Garvi; Ana Belen Ortega-Avila; Jose Miguel Morales-Asencio; Jose Antonio Cervera-Marin; Rob Roy Martin; Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 2.303