Evidence of Validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM)

Abstract

Background: There is no universally accepted instrument that can be used to evaluate changes in self-reported physical function for individuals with leg, ankle, and foot musculoskeletal disorders. The objective of this study was to develop an instrument to meet this need: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Additionally, this study was designed to provide validity evidence for interpretation of FAAM scores. Methods: Final item reduction was completed using item response theory with 1027 subjects. Validity evidence was provided by 164 subjects that were expected to change and 79 subjects that were expected to remain stable. These subjects were given the FAAM and SF-36 to complete on two occasions 4 weeks apart. Results: The final version of the FAAM consists of the 21-item activities of daily living (ADL) and 8-item Sports subscales, which together produced information across the spectrum ability. Validity evidence was provided for test content, internal structure, score stability, and responsiveness. Test retest reliability was 0.89 and 0.87 for the ADL and Sports subscales, respectively. The minimal detectable change based on a 95% confidence interval was ±5.7 and ±-12.3 points for the ADL and Sports subscales, respectively. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA and ROC analysis found both the ADL andSports subscales were responsive to changes in status (p < 0.05). The minimal clinically important differences were 8 and 9 points for the ADL and Sports subscales, respectively. Guyatt responsive index and ROC analysis found the ADL subscale was more responsive than general measures of physical function while the Sports subscale was not. The ADL and Sport subscales demonstrated strong relationships with the SF-36 physical function subscale (r = 0.84, 0.78) and physical component summary score (r = 0.78, 0.80) and weak relationships with the SF-36 mental function subscale (r = 0.18, 0.11) and mental component summary score (r = 0.05, −0.02). Conclusions: The FAAM is a reliable, responsive, and valid measure of physical function for individuals with a broad range of musculoskeletal disorders of the lower leg, foot, and ankle.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Beaton

: Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 25: 3192–3199, 2000.

2. Budiman Mak

Conrad

Roach

: The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 44: 561–570, 1991.

3. DeAyala

: An introduction to polytomous item response theory models. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 25: 172–189, 1993.

4. Dodd

DeAyala

Koch

: Computerized adaptive testing with polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement 19: 5–22, 1995.

5. Dillman

: Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York, Wiley-Intersience, 1978.

6. Guyatt

Walter

Norman

: Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J. Chronic Dis. 40: 171–178, 1987.

7. Hambleton

Jones

: Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Education Measurement: Issues and Practices 12: 38–47, 1993.

8. Kitaoka

Alexander

Adelaar

: Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 15: 349–353, 1994.

9. Lord

: The relation of test score to the trait underlying the test. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 13: 517–548, 1953.

10.

10. Martin

Irrgang

Burdett

Conti

VanSwearingen

: A systematic review of self-reported evaluative measures of function and disability for the foot and ankle. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. submitted for publication, 2004.

11.

11. Meng

Roenthal

Rubin

: Comparing correlation coefficients. Psychol. Bull. 111: 172–175, 1992.

12.

12. Messick

: Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher. 18: 5–11, 1989.

13.

13. Reise

: Parameter recovery in the graded response model using MULTILOG. Journal of Education Measurement. 27: 133–144, 1990.

14.

14. Saag

Saltzman

Brown

Budiman Mak

: The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: Evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot Ankle Int. 17: 506–510, 1996.

15.

15. Shrout

Fleiss

: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 86: 420–428, 1979.

16.

16. SooHoo

Shuler

Fleming

: Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int. 24: 50–55, 2003.

17.

17. Strafford

Binkley

Soloman

: Defining the minimal level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 76: 359–365, 1996.

18.

18. Teresi

Goldman

Cross

: Item bias in cognitive screening measures: Comparisons of elderly white, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48: 473–483, 1995.

19.

19. Tuley

Mulrow

McMahan

: Estimating and testing an index of responsiveness and the relationship of the index to power. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 44: 417–421, 1991.