15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Measurement properties of the most commonly used Foot- and Ankle-Specific Questionnaires: the FFI, FAOS and FAAM. A systematic review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction.

          We studied the validity and reliability of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) when used to evaluate the outcome of 213 patients (mean age 40 years, 85 females) who underwent anatomical reconstruction of the lateral ankle ligaments with an average postoperative follow-up of 12 years (range, three to 24 years). The FAOS is a 42-item questionnaire assessing patient-relevant outcomes in five separate subscales (Pain, Other Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, Sport and Recreation Function, Foot- and Ankle-Related Quality of Life). The FAOS met set criteria of validity and reliability. The FAOS appears to be useful for the evaluation of patient-relevant outcomes related to ankle reconstruction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The foot function index: A measure of foot pain and disability

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability.

              The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) is a region-specific, non-disease-specific outcome instrument that possesses many of the clinimetric qualities recommended for an outcome instrument. Evidence of validity to support the use of the FAAM is available in individuals with a wide array of ankle and foot disorders. However, additional evidence to support the use of the FAAM for those with chronic ankle instability (CAI) is needed. To provide evidence of construct validity for the FAAM based on hypothesis testing in athletes with CAI. Between-groups comparison. Athletic training room. Thirty National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II athletes (16 men, 14 women) from one university. The FAAM including activities of daily living (ADL) and sports subscales and the global and categorical ratings of function. For both the ADL and sports subscales, FAAM scores were greater in healthy participants (100 +/- 0.0 and 99 +/- 3.5, respectively) than in subjects with CAI (88 +/- 7.7 and 76 +/- 12.7, respectively; P < .001). Similarly, for both ADL and sports subscales, FAAM scores were greater in athletes who indicated that their ankles were normal (98 +/- 6.3 and 96 +/- 6.9, respectively) than in those who classified their ankles as either nearly normal or abnormal (87 +/- 6.6 and 71 +/- 11.1, respectively; P < .001). We found relationships between FAAM scores and self-reported global ratings of function for both ADL and sports subscales. Relationships were stronger when all athletes, rather than just those with CAI, were included in the analyses. The FAAM may be used to detect self-reported functional deficits related to CAI.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
                Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
                Springer Nature
                0942-2056
                1433-7347
                July 2018
                October 12 2017
                July 2018
                : 26
                : 7
                : 2059-2073
                Article
                10.1007/s00167-017-4748-7
                29026933
                811da5af-c4c7-4618-84cc-10f0f5548767
                © 2018

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article