Author:
Zhang Yongni,Davis Jessica,Martin RobRoy L.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference32 articles.
1. Anaforoglu Kulunkoglu, B., & Celik, D. (2019). Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of foot and ankle ability measure for patients with chronic ankle disability. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 58(1), 38–41. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2018.07.007
2. Arunakul, M., Arunakul, P., Suesiritumrong, C., Angthong, C., & Chernchujit, B. (2015). Validity and reliability of Thai version of the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) Subjective Form. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 98(6), 561–567.
3. Borloz, S., Crevoisier, X., Deriaz, O., Ballabeni, P., Martin, R. L., & Luthi, F. (2011). Evidence for validity and reliability of a French version of the FAAM. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 12, 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-40
4. Carcia, C. R., Martin, R. L., & Drouin, J. M. (2008). Validity of the foot and ankle ability measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. Journal of Athletic Training, 43(2), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.179
5. Çelik, D., Malkoç, M., & Martin, R. (2016). Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Rheumatology International, 36(10), 1469–1476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3485-4