Reliability and validity of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score: a validation study from Iran

Negahban, Hossein; Mazaheri, Masood; Salavati, Mahyar; Sohani, Soheil Mansour; Askari, Marjan; Fanian, H; Parnianpour, Mohamad

doi:10.1007/s10067-009-1344-3

Cited by 63 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study OMAS was validated using two different instruments, the disease-specific questionnaire FAOS and the global rating scale, GSRF. FAOS has been tested for reliability and validity in the Swedish version [35], the Turkish version [40] and the Iranian version [48]. The ICC values for test-retest reliability were high [40,48] and the validity using SF-36 varied between low and moderate in the Iranian version [48] and between low and high in the Turkish version [40], but in that study only three subscales of SF-36 were presented.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…FAOS has been tested for reliability and validity in the Swedish version [35], the Turkish version [40] and the Iranian version [48]. The ICC values for test-retest reliability were high [40,48] and the validity using SF-36 varied between low and moderate in the Iranian version [48] and between low and high in the Turkish version [40], but in that study only three subscales of SF-36 were presented. SF-36 is an instrument evaluating generic health-related quality of life, including equal parts of mental health and physical health, whereas FAOS is a disease-specific instrument evaluating functional outcome of the ankle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Swedish version of OMAS is a reliable and valid outcome measure for patients with ankle fractures

Nilsson,

Eneroth,

Ekdahl

2013

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability and the validity of the self-reported questionnaire Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) in subjects after an ankle fracture.MethodsWhen evaluating the test-retest reliability of the OMAS, 42 subjects surgically treated due to an ankle fracture participated 12 months after injury. OMAS was completed by the patients on two occasions at one to two weeks’ interval. Concurrent criterion validity was evaluated using the five subscales of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and global self-rating function (GSRF), which is a five-grade Likert scale with the alternatives: “very good”, “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “very poor”. Forty-six patients participated in the validation against FAOS, and for GSRF 105 patients participated at 6 months and 99 at 12 months. Uni-, bi- and trimalleolar fractures were all included and both non-rigid and rigid surgical techniques were used. All fractures healed without complications. Before analysis of the results the five groups according to GSRF were reduced to three: “good”, “fair” and “poor”. Test-retest reliability was assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the standard error of measurement (SEM and SEM%) and the smallest real difference (SRD and SRD%). The Cronbach’s alpha score and validity versus FAOS was assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation and validity versus GSRF using the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Mann–Whitney U-Test as ad hoc analyses.ResultsThe test-retest reliability correlation coefficient obtained was rho = 0.95 and ICC = 0.94. The SEM was 4.4 points and SEM% 5.8% and should be interpreted as the smallest change that indicates a real change of clinical interest for a group of subjects. The SRD was 12 points and SRD% 15.8% and should be interpreted as the smallest change that indicates a real change of clinical interest for a single subject. The correlation coefficients versus the five subscales of FAOS ranged from rho = 0.80 to 0.86. There were significant differences between GSRF groups “good”, “fair” and “poor” (p < 0.001) at both the six-month and the 12-month follow-up. The internal consistency for the OMAS was 0.76. The effect size between results from 6-month and 12-month follow-up turned out be 0.44 and should be considered as medium.ConclusionThe results showed that the test-retest reliability of the Swedish version of OMAS was very high in subjects after an ankle fracture and the standard error of measurement was low. Furthermore the OMAS was found to be valid using both the five subscales of FAOS and the GSRF. The OMAS can thus be used as an outcome measure after an ankle fracture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Swedish version of OMAS is a reliable and valid outcome measure for patients with ankle fractures

Nilsson,

Eneroth,

Ekdahl

2013

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the relationship between the FAOS and the SF-36 and between the FAOS and the WOMAC was determined, in line with previous studies into the FAOS [6,7]. Data were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test and normal Q-Q plot.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The Turkish and Persian versions of the FAOS were also compared with related subscales of the SF-36. This comparison led to corresponding results in the Turkish and Dutch versions (0.42 to 0.78) [7], and to lower correlations in the Persian version (−0.33 to 0.58) [6]. Construct validity was not determined in other versions of the FAOS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The FAOS was developed in Sweden and is a modification of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) [4,5]. The validity and reliability of the original Swedish version of the FAOS as well as of four different translated versions (English, Portuguese [Brazilian], Turkish and Persian [Iran]) is considered good [4,6-8]. However, there is no Dutch version of the FAOS yet.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS)

Akker‐Scheek

Seldentuis

Reininga

et al. 2013

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) is a patient-reported questionnaire measuring symptoms and functional limitations of the foot and ankle. Aim is to translate and culturally adapt the Dutch version of the FAOS and to investigate internal consistency, validity, repeatability and responsiveness.MethodsAccording to the Cross Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures guideline, the FAOS was translated into Dutch. Eighty-nine patients who had undergone an ankle arthroscopy, ankle arthrodesis, ankle ligament reconstruction or hallux valgus correction completed the FAOS, FFI, WOMAC and SF-36 questionnaires and were included in the validity study. Sixty-five of them completed the FAOS a second time to determine repeatability. Responsiveness was analysed in an additional 15 patients who were being treated for foot or ankle problems.ResultsInternal consistency of the FAOS is high (Cronbach’s alphas varying between 0.90 and 0.96). Repeatability can be considered good, with ICC’s ranging from 0.90 to 0.96. Construct validity can be classified as good with moderate-to-high correlations between the FAOS subscales and subscales of the FFI (0.55 to 0.90), WOMAC (0.57 to 0.92) and SF-36 subscales physical functioning, pain, social functioning and role-physical (0.33 to 0.81). Low standard response means were found for responsiveness (0.0 to 0.4).ConclusionsThe results of this study show that the Dutch version of the FAOS is a reliable and valid questionnaire to assess symptoms and functional limitations of the foot and ankle.

show abstract

Psychometric Properties of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score in a Community‐Based Study of Adults With and Without Osteoarthritis

Golightly

DeVellis

Nelson

et al. 2014

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Foot and ankle problems are common in adults, and large observational studies are needed to advance our understanding of the etiology and impact of these conditions. Valid and reliable measures of foot and ankle symptoms and physical function are necessary for this research. This study examined psychometric properties of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) subscales (pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living [ADL], sport and recreational function [Sport/Recreation], and foot and ankle related quality of life [QOL]) in a large, community-based sample of African American and Caucasian men and women 50+ years old. Methods Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project participants (N=1670) completed the 42-item FAOS (mean age 69 years, 68% women, 31% African American, mean body mass index [BMI] 31.5 kg/m2). Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and structural validity of each subscale were examined for the sample and for subgroups according to race, gender, age, BMI, presence of knee or hip osteoarthritis, and presence of knee, hip or low back symptoms. Results For the sample and each subgroup, Cronbach’s alphas were 0.95–0.97 (pain), 0.97–0.98 (ADL), 0.94–0.96 (Sport/Recreation), 0.89–0.92(QOL), and 0.72–0.82 (symptoms). Correlation coefficients were 0.24–0.52 for pain and symptoms subscales with foot and ankle symptoms and 0.30–0.55 for ADL and Sport/Recreation subscales with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale. Intraclass correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability were 0.63–0.81. Items loaded on a single factor for each subscale except symptoms (2 factors). Conclusions The FAOS exhibited sufficient reliability and validity in this large cohort study.

show abstract

Reliability and validity of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score: a validation study from Iran

Cited by 63 publications

References 16 publications

The Swedish version of OMAS is a reliable and valid outcome measure for patients with ankle fractures

The Swedish version of OMAS is a reliable and valid outcome measure for patients with ankle fractures

Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS)

Psychometric Properties of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score in a Community‐Based Study of Adults With and Without Osteoarthritis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About