Validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) for Osteochondral Lesions of the Ankle

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to validate the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) for osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs). We hypothesize that the FAOS will meet all 4 psychometric criteria for validity in this patient population. Methods: From 2008 to 2014, a total of 208 patients with OLTs were included in the construct validity portion of the study. All patients completed FAOS and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) scores. Twenty additional patients were prospectively recruited and were asked to complete questionnaires to determine the relevance of each of the FAOS questions as it related to their OLT. Forty-four patients completed the FAOS 1 month after the first FAOS to assess reliability via Spearman correlation coefficient. Responsiveness of the FAOS was assessed with 54 patients who had both preoperative and postoperative FAOS scores via Student paired t test with significance determined as P < .05. In total, 229 unique patients were included in this study. Results: Statistically significant associations were found between all FAOS and SF-12 subscales ( P < .01). The FAOS symptoms subscale demonstrated the lowest correlation with the SF-12 physical health domains. No floor or ceiling effects were identified. Weak correlations were calculated between the 5 FAOS subscales and the SF-12 mental component summary score. All FAOS domains met the threshold for acceptable content validity (score > 2.0). All FAOS subscales demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability, with ICC values ranging from 0.81 (ADL) to 0.92 (Pain). Conclusion: This study demonstrates the acceptable yet moderate construct and content validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the FAOS for patients with OLTs of the ankle joint. We endorse the use of the FAOS in evaluating ankle OLTs in both the research and clinical setting and consider it a useful patient-reported, self-administered instrument following surgical intervention. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective case study.