This study evaluates the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by examining their level of correlation to the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) in patients with foot and ankle complaints. The SF-36 is an extensively validated outcomes tool that has been used as a benchmark in examining the validity of outcomes instruments designed for the upper extremity, knee, shoulder, and general orthopaedic conditions. The study sample was 91 patients seen at the foot and ankle clinic of a university-based orthopaedic practice. Patients were administered both the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems and SF-36 instruments. Pearson correlation coefficients of the AOFAS scores to the SF-36 sub-scales ranged from 0.02 to 0.36 in the overall study population. Correlation was higher for the sub-set of patients with ankle-hindfoot disorders (0.11 to 0.53) than patients with forefoot disorders (−0.05 to 0.25). The low levels of correlation seen in this study suggest poor construct validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems.
AmadioPC: Outcomes assessment in hand surgery. Clin Plast Surg, 24:191–194, 1997.
2.
AmadioPCSilversteinMDIlstrupMDSchleckCKJensenLM: Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: The relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical exam measures. J Hand Surg, 21A:338–346, 1996.
3.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Scoring algorithms for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand outcomes data collection instrument, v. 2.0. Rosemont, Illinois, 1997.
4.
BeatonDEHogg-JohnsonSBombardierC: Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol, 50:79–93, 1997.
5.
BeatonDERichardsRR: Measuring function of the shoulder. JBJS, 78A:882–890, 1996.
6.
BessetteLSanghaOKuntzKMKellerRBLewRAFosselAHKatzJN: Comparative responsiveness of generic vs. disease-specific and weighted vs. unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care, 36:491–502, 1998.
7.
BoardmanDLDoreyFThomasBJLiebermanJR: The accuracy of assessing total hip arthroplasty outcomes: A prospective correlation study of walking ability to 2 validated measurement devices. J Arthroplasty, 15(2):200–204, 2000.
8.
Budiman-MakEConradKJRoachKE: The Foot Function Index: A measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiology, 44:561–570, 1991.
9.
DaltroyLHLiangMHFosselAHGoldbergMJ: The POSNA Pediatric Musculoskeletal Functional Health Questionnaire: Report on the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J Ped Orthop, 18:561–571, 1998.
10.
EnglebergRMartinDPAgelJObremskyWCoronadoGSwiontkowskiMF: Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Instrument: Criterion and construct validity. J Ortho Res, 14:182–192, 1996.
11.
GuytonGP: Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS Scoring Systems: An analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int, 22(10):779–787, 2001.
12.
HudakPLAmadioPCBombadierCDevelopment of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand). Am J of Indus Med;29:602–608.
13.
KatzJNGelbermanRHWrightEALewRALiangMH: Responsiveness of self-reported and objective measures of disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care, 32:1127–1133, 1994.
14.
KitaokaHBAlexanderIJAdelaarRSNunleyJAMyersonMSSandersM: Clinical Rating Systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int, 15(7):349–353, 1994.
15.
LevineDWSimmonsBPKarisMJDaltroyLHHohlGGFosselAHKatzJN: A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. JBJS1993; 75A:1585–1591.
16.
LiangMHFosselAHLarsonMG: Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care, 28:632–42, 1990.
17.
LingardEAKatzJNWrightJRWrightEA: Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. JBJS, 83-A:1856–1864, 2001.
18.
MarxRGJonesECAllenAAAltchekDWO'BrienSJRoedoSAWilliamsRJWarrenRFWickiewiczTL: Reliability, validity and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. JBJS, 83-A:1459–1469, 2001.
19.
MangioneCMGoldmanLOravEJMarcantonioERPedanALudwigLEDonaldsonMCSugarbakerDJPossRLeeTH: Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: Measurement of longitudinal changes. J Gen Intern Med, 12:686–697, 1997.
20.
MartinDPEngelbergRAgelJSwiontkowskiMF: Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile health-status measures. JBJS, 79A:1323–1335, 1997.
21.
McHorneyCAWareJERaczekAE: The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructsMed Care, 31(3):247–263, 1993.
22.
PatrickDLDeyoRAAtlasSJSingerDEChapinAKellerRB: Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine, 20(17):1899–1909, 1995.
SodermanPMalchauH: Validity and reliability of Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index: A self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) vs. generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP)Acta Orthop Scand, 71(1):39–46, 2000.
25.
SooHooNFMcDonaldAPSeilerJGMcGillivaryGR: Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. J Hand Surgery, 27-A(3):537–541, 2002.
26.
TuttlemanMPillemerSRTilleyBCFowlerSEBuckleyLMAlarconGSTrenthamDENeunerRCleggDOLeisenJCHeyseSP: A cross sectional assessment of heath status instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis participating in a clinical trial. J Rheum, 24(10):1910–1915, 1997.
27.
WareJE: SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1993.
28.
WareJEKosinskiMKellerSD: SF-36 Physical and mental health summary scales: A user's manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1994.
