Reliability of the Foot Function Index: A Report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee

Author:

Agel Julie1,Beskin James L.2,Brage Michael3,Guyton Gregory P.4,Kadel Nancy J.1,Saltzman Charles L.5,Sands Andrew K.6,Sangeorzan Bruce J.7,SooHoo Nelson F.8,Stroud Chris C.9,Thordarson David B.10

Affiliation:

1. University of Washington, Orthopaedics, Seattle, WA

2. Peachtree Orthopaedic Clinic, Atlanta, GA

3. University of California, San Diego, CA

4. Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD

5. University of Iowa, Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA

6. St. Vincents Orthopaedic Associates, New York, NY

7. Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA

8. University of California, Los Angeles, CA

9. Orthopaedic and Spine Surgeons of Troy, Troy, NY

10. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

Abstract

Background: There currently is no widely used, validated, self-administered instrument for measuring musculoskeletal functional status in individuals with nonsystemic foot disorders. The purpose of this paper was to report on the assessment of reliability of one of these instruments. We wanted to determine if the Foot Function Index (FFI), which has been validated in rheumatoid patients without fixed foot deformity or prior foot surgery, would be reliable for a population of patients with foot complaints without systemic disease. Methods: Patients were recruited from five orthopaedic offices where the physicians were members of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Patients were asked to complete the FFI at the time of their initial office visit and then were givena second copy to complete and return by mail 1 week after their visit. Results: Ninety-six patients completed the first questionnaire, and 54 patients completed the second. Reliability in this population was acceptable with an average of 23.5% of the patients providing retest values within one point of the initial response and an average of 45.3% of the patients providing the same response, for a total of 68.8% of all respondents answering within one point between their initial and second questionnaire. In two of the three categories, there were frequent nonresponses or no applicable responses. Four questions, two in the pain section and two in the activity limitation section, generated 20% or more of the nonapplicable answers. Conclusions: The FFI appears to be a reasonable tool for low functioning individuals with foot disorders. It may not be appropriate for individuals who function at or above the level of independent activities of daily living.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3