Evaluation of the Validity of the Foot Function Index in Measuring Outcomes in Patients with Foot and Ankle Disorders

Abstract

Background: There is uncertainty regarding which outcomes tools should be used to report the results of treatment for patients with foot and ankle disorders. This study evaluates the validity of the Foot Function Index (FFI) by examining its level of correlation to the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36). The SF-36 is an extensively validated outcomes tool that has been used as a benchmark in examining the validity of several orthopaedic outcomes tools. Methods: Seventy-three patients were recruited at a tertiary referral foot and ankle practice. Patients completed packets which included informed consent forms, the FFI, and the SF-36 questionnaires. The questionnaires were scored and Pearson correlation coefficients were determined between the three domains of the FFI and the eight SF-36 sub-scales, as well as the two SF-36 summary scales. Results: Sixty-nine patients completed an adequate number of items to be included in the study. The mean age of the patient sample was 46 (range 16 to 82) years and 44 were women (64%). Twenty-one patients (30%) had conditions affecting the forefoot, while 48 patients (70%) had conditions affecting the ankle or hindfoot. All three FFI domains had moderate to high levels of correlation to many of the SF-36 scales. The Disability domain of the FFI had the most consistent level of correlation to the SF-36 with Pearson coefficients in the range of −0.23 to −0.69. The Activity Limitation (r = −0.28 to −0.64) and Pain domains (r = −0.10 to −0.61) also demonstrated moderate levels of correlation to several of the SF-36 scales. Conclusions: The consistently moderate to high levels of correlation of the FFI to the SF-36 seen in this study support the FFI as a valid measure of health status. This suggests that the FFI is a reasonable method to monitor patient outcomes. Future studies should focus on determining if the FFI improves responsiveness to clinical change when used in combination with generic instruments like the SF-36.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Amadio

Silverstein

Ilstrup

Schleck

Jensen

: Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: The relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical examination measures. J. Hand Surg. 21-A:338–346, 1996.

2. Beskin

Brage

Guyton

: Reproducibility of the Foot Function Index: A report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee. Submitted for publication.

3. Beaton

Hogg-Johnson

Bombardier

: Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J. Clin. Epidemiology. 50(1):79–93, 1997.

4. Beaton

Richards

: Measuring function of the shoulder. A cross-sectional comparison of five questionnaires. J. Bone Joint Surg. 78-A:882–890, 1996.

5. Bessette

Sangha

Kuntz

: Comparative responsiveness of generic vs. disease-specific and weighted vs. unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med. Care. 36:491–502, 1998.

6. Boardman

Dorey

Thomas

Lieberman

: 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.

7. Budiman-Mak

Conrad

Roach

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

8. Button

Pinney

: A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: Is there a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument? Foot Ankle Int. 25(8):521–525, 2004.

9. Daltroy

Liang

Fossel

Goldberg

: The POSNA Pediatric Musculoskeletal Functional Health Questionnaire. Report on the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J. Ped. Orthop. 18:561–571, 1998.

10.

10. Kirschner

Walther

Bohm

: German short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire (SMFA-D): comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC in a prospective evaluation in patients with primary osteoarthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Rheum. Int. 23:15–20, 2003.

11.

11. Kitaoka

Alexander

Adelaar

: Clinical Rating Systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 15(7):349–353, 1994.

12.

12. Kuyvenhoven

Gorter

Zuithoff

: The Foot Function Index with Verbal Rating Scales (FFI-5pt): A clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. J. Rheum. 29(5):1023–1028, 2002.

13.

13. Liang

Fossel

Larson

: Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopaedic evaluation. Med. Care. 28:632–642, 1990.

14.

14. Lingard

Katz

Wright

Sledge

: Validity and Responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A:1856–1864, 2001.

15.

15. Mangione

Goldman

Orav

: Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: Measurement of longitudinal changes. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 12:686–697, 1997.

16.

16. Martin

Engelberg

Agel

Swiontkowski

: 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. J. Bone Joint Surg. 79-A:1323–1335, 1997.

17.

17. Marx

Jones

Allen

: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J. Bone Joint Surg. 83-A:1459–1469, 2001.

18.

18. McHorney

Ware

Raczek

: The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med. Care. 31(3):247–263, 1993.

19.

19. Patrick

Deyo

Atlas

: Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine 20(17):1899–1909, 1995.

20.

20. Saag

Saltzman

Brown

Budiman-Mak

: The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot Ankle Int. 17(8):506–510, 1996.

21.

21. Soderman

Malchau

Validity and reliability of the Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index: A self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) versus generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP). Acta Orthop. Scand. 71(1):39–46, 2000.

22.

22. SooHoo

McDonald

Seiler

McGillivary

: Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. J. Hand Surg. 27-A(3):537–541, 2002.

23.

23. SooHoo

Shuler

Fleming

: Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int. 24(1):50–55, 2003.

24.

24. Tuttleman

Pillemer

Tilley

: A cross sectional assessment of health status instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis participating in a clinical trial. J. Rheum. 24(10):1910–1915, 1997.

25.

25. Ware

: SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide, The Health Institute, Boston, 1993.

26.

26. Ware

Kosinski

Keller

: SF-36 Physical and mental health summary scales: A user's manual, The Health Institute, Boston, 1994.

27.

27. Wittink

Turk

Carr

Sukiennik

Rogers

Comparison of the redundancy, reliability, and responsiveness to change among SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index, and Multidimensional Pain Inventory. Clin. J. Pain. 20(3):133–142, 2004.