This study aimed to cross-cultural translate the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure to Arabic version (FAAM-AR) and to assess the psychometric properties of the FAAM-AR in a sample of Arabic-speaking participants.
Methodology
The FAAM-AR was translated according to the International Society for Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) guidelines. To determine construct validity, 106 participants with different foot and ankle musculoskeletal pathologies completed the FAAM-AR and SF-36. In addition, the FAAM-AR internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Test-retest reliability was assessed using Intra-class correlation coefficient ICC2,1.
Results
The FAAM-AR was moderately correlated with Physical component Summary of SF-36 (ADL r = 0.67; Sport r = 0.67). Whereas, FAAM-AR showed weak correlations with Mental component Summary of SF-36 (ADL r = 0.33; Sport r = 0.19). The FAAM-AR showed excellent degree of internal consistency (ADL = 0.95; Sport = 0.92), and excellent test-retest reliability (ADL = 0.95; Sport = 0.95).
Conclusion
The FAAM-AR is a valid and reliable tool for assessing ankle-foot functional status among Arabic-speaking patients with various ankle or foot musculoskeletal pathologies.
FongDTPHongYChanLK, et al.A systematic review on ankle injury and ankle sprain in sports. Sports Med2007; 37: 73–94.
2.
HootmanJMDickRAgelJ. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train2007; 42: 311–319.
3.
Hubbard-TurnerTWikstromEAGuderianS, et al.An acute lateral ankle sprain significantly decreases physical activity across the lifespan. J Sports Sci Med2015; 14: 556–561.
4.
TriciaHTMichaelJTChrisB, et al.Decreased self report physical activity one year after an acute ankle sprain. J Musculoskelet Disord Treat2018; 4: 062.
5.
ArnoldBLWrightCJRossSE. Functional ankle instability and health-related quality of life. J Athl Train2011; 46: 634–641.
6.
CroyTSalibaSASalibaE, et al.Differences in lateral ankle laxity measured via stress ultrasonography in individuals with chronic ankle instability, ankle sprain copers, and healthy individuals. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2012; 42: 593–600.
7.
HillerCENightingaleEJRaymondJ, et al.Prevalence and impact of chronic musculoskeletal ankle disorders in the community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2012; 93: 1801–1807.
8.
ValderrabanoVHintermannBHorisbergerM, et al.Ligamentous posttraumatic ankle osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med2006; 34: 612–620.
9.
YeungMSChanKMSoCH, et al.An epidemiological survey on ankle sprain. Br J Sports Med1994; 28: 112–116.
10.
NeedleARLepleyASGroomsDR. Central nervous system adaptation after ligamentous injury: a summary of theories, evidence, and clinical interpretation. Sports Med2017; 47: 1271–1288.
11.
RosenABYentesJMMcGrathML, et al.Alterations in cortical activation among individuals with chronic ankle instability during single-limb postural control. J Athl Train2019; 54: 718–726.
12.
ThompsonCSchabrunSRomeroR, et al.Factors contributing to chronic ankle instability: a. Systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews. Sports Med2018; 48: 189–205.
13.
DawsonJDollHFitzpatrickR, et al.The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. Br Med J2010; 340: c186.
14.
HuntKJLakeyE. Patient-Reported outcomes in foot and ankle surgery. Orthop Clin North Am2018; 49: 277–289.
15.
LakeyEHuntKJ. Patient-reported outcomes in foot and ankle orthopedics. Foot Ankle Orthop2019; 4: 2473011419852930.
16.
MartinRLIrrgangJJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2007; 37: 72–84.
17.
HoustonMNHochJMHochMC. Patient-Reported outcome measures in individuals with chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. J Athl Train2015; 50: 1019–1033.
18.
MartinRLHuttDMWukichDK. Validity of the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) in diabetes Mellitus. Foot Ankle Int2009; 30: 297–302.
19.
MartinRLIrrgangJJBurdettRG, et al.Evidence of validity for the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int2005; 26: 968–983.
20.
MartinRLDavenportTEFraserJJ, et al.Ankle stability and movement coordination impairments: lateral ankle ligament sprains revision 2021: clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of functioning, disability and health from the academy of orthopaedic physical therapy of the American physical therapy association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2021; 51: CPG1–CPG80.
21.
HansenCFObionuKCCominsJD, et al.Patient reported outcome measures for ankle instability. An analysis of 17 existing questionnaires. Foot Ankle Surg2022; 28: 288–293.
22.
MazaheriMSalavatiMNegahbanH, et al.Reliability and validity of the Persian version of foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Osteoarthr Cartil2010; 18: 755–759.
23.
BorlozSCrevoisierXDeriazO, et al.Evidence for validity and reliability of a French version of the FAAM. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2011; 12: 40.
24.
NauckTLohrerH. Translation, cross-cultural adaption and validation of the German version of the foot and ankle ability measure for patients with chronic ankle instability. Br J Sports Med2011; 45: 785–790.
25.
SartorioFVercelliSBraviniE, et al.Foot and ankle ability measure: cross-cultural translation and validation of the Italian version of the ADL module (FAAM-I/ADL). Med Lav2014; 105: 357–365.
26.
UematsuDSuzukiHSasakiS, et al.Evidence of validity for the Japanese version of the foot and ankle ability measure. J Athl Train2015; 50: 65–70.
27.
ArunakulMArunakulPSuesiritumrongC, et al.Validity and reliability of Thai version of the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). subjective form. J Med Assoc Thai2015; 98: 561–567.
28.
WeelHZwiersRAzimD, et al.Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the foot and ankle ability measure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2016; 24: 1348–1354.
29.
ÇelikDMalkoçMMartinR. Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of turkish foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Rheumatol Int2016; 36: 1469–1476.
30.
MoreiraTSMagalhãesL de CSilvaRD, et al.Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validity of the Brazilian version of the foot and ankle ability measure questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil2016; 38: 2479–2490.
31.
González-SánchezMLiGZRuiz MuñozM, et al.Foot and ankle ability measure to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders: a Chinese cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Disabil Rehabil2017; 39: 2182–2189.
32.
Cervera-GarviPOrtega-AvilaABMorales-AsencioJM, et al.Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Spanish version of the foot and ankle ability measures (FAAM-Sp). J Foot Ankle Res2017; 10: 39.
33.
BeatonDEBombardierCGuilleminF, et al.Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine2000; 25: 3186–3191.
34.
WareJESherbourneCD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care1992; 30: 473–483.
35.
CoonsSJAlabdulmohsinSADraugalisJR, et al.Reliability of an arabic version of the RAND-36 health survey and its equivalence to the US-English version. Med Care1998; 36: 428–432.
36.
ArafatSChowdhuryHQusarM, et al.Cross cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of research instruments: a methodological review. J Behav Health2016; 5: 129.
37.
RubioDMBerg-WegerMTebbSS, et al.Objectifying content validity: conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc Work Res2003; 27: 94–104.
38.
YusoffM.ABC Of response process validation and face validity Index calculation. EIMJ2019; 11: 55–61.
39.
FitzpatrickRDaveyCBuxtonMJ, et al.Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess1998; 2: i-iv, 1–74.
40.
AlmangoushAHerringtonLAttiaI, et al.Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, internal consistency and validation of the arabic version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) for Egyptian people with knee injuries. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2013; 21: 1855–1864.
41.
MokkinkLBVetHCW dePrinsenC a. C, et al.COSMIN Risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res2018; 27: 1171.
42.
Souza AC de, AlexandreNMCGuirardello E deB. Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiol Serv Saude2017; 26: 649–659.
43.
ThorndikeRM.Book review : psychometric theory (3rd ed.) by jum nunnally and ira bernstein New York: mcGraw-hill, 1994, xxiv + 752 pp. Appl Psychol Meas1995; 19: 303–305.
44.
WeirJP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res2005; 19: 231–240.
45.
AtkinsonGNevillAM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med1998; 26: 217–238.
46.
KaneR. Understanding Health Care Outcomes Research. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2006.
47.
VenkatesanMAzizSMahadevanD, et al.Evaluation of validity, reliability, and feasibility of 3 patient-reported foot and ankle outcome measures. J Foot Ankle Surg2020; 59: 507–512.
48.
TerweeCBBotSDMde BoerMR, et al.Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol2007; 60: 34–42.
49.
CortinaJM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology1993; 78: 98–104.
50.
GardenerEAHuppertFAGuralnikJM, et al.Middle-Aged and mobility-limited: prevalence of disability and symptom attributions in a national survey. J Gen Intern Med2006; 21: 1091–1096.
