Cross‐cultural adaptation, translation, and validation of the Spanish Foot and Ankle Outcome Score questionnaire

Abstract

The Spanish Foot and Ankle Outcome Score questionnaire (FAOS‐S) may be considered a health evaluation tool with 42 questions for assessing foot health disorders. To date, FAOS has been validated in different languages, but a Spanish version was lacking. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to translate and validate the Spanish version of the FAOS (FAOS es). A suitable method was developed for the translation protocol and cross‐cultural validation from Swedish to Spanish. Regarding the total marks from each domain, agreement degrees and confidence were analysed using the Cronbach's α and intraclass correlation coefficient, respectively. In addition, the mean ± SD differences between pretest and posttests were calculated and completed using of the Bland and Altman distribution plots. Excellent agreement between the two versions based on Cronbach's α was demonstrated. Five domains consisting of pain, symptoms of foot disorders, activities of daily living, sports and recreation, and foot and ankle quality of life were added together to obtain the total score. Excellent retest reliability was shown for the total score. Test/retest reliability was excellent for the pain, stiffness, other foot disorder‐related symptoms, and quality of life domains. There were no significant differences among any domain (P > .05). There were no statistically significant differences (P = .000) for the mean ± SD differences between pretest and posttests (56.2524 ± 19.064 [51.98–60.52] and 57.45 ± 21.02 [52.74–62.16] points, respectively). Bland and Altman plots or clinically pertinent variations were not statistically significantly different. The FAOS is considered a strong and valid questionnaire with adequate repeatability in the Spanish community.

Clinical Manifestations, Diagnosis and Management of Synovial Fistula Associated Lateral Ankle Sprain or Instability: A Retrospective Study of 19 Surgically Confirmed Patients

“…Considering the rarity of SFs around the ankle joint known in the literature, we believe that such a backward approach toward limited number of SF cases detected surgically was inevitable in this study. As a result, succeeding randomized prospective comparative studies among various population would be needed to help verify the validity of this work [20,30]. Second, it is uncertain whether conservatively treated SFs related to the lateral ankle sprain or instability would eventually end up with successful clinical outcomes.…”

Transcultural Adaptation and Validation of the Spanish Version of the Visual Analogue Scale for the Foot and Ankle (VASFA)

“…The instruments used to assess the convergent validity of different versions of VASFA vary widely, including questionnaires and scales such as the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) [ 19 ], the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) [ 20 ], the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) [ 21 ], the Foot Function Index (FFI) [ 22 ], the Hannover Questionnaire (Q) [ 23 ] or the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) [ 24 ]. The correlations with the original VASFA include 0.34 with the SF-36 for the Turkish version and 0.7 with the Q for the original version.…”

Effects of Nurse and Care Worker-led Foot-Care Program on Older People’s Foot Conditions: Before and After Intervention Study

“…Moreover, the foot-care instruments or methods used in previous studies of older people in the community with diabetes were not adequately suited to this population. In future studies, a different study design may be used based on resources presented in previous studies (Navarro-Flores et al, 2018, 2020a, 2020c, 2021Sánchez-Gómez et al, 2020;Simón-Pérez et al, 2020).…”