Age- and Sex-Related Normative Data for the Foot Function Index in a German-Speaking Cohort

Abstract

Background:

Despite increasing popularity of the Foot Function Index (FFI), normative values are still unavailable for this self-administered score. This study was designed to generate age- and sex-related normative values for the FFI-total and for both subscales FFI-pain and FFI-disability.

Methods:

We used the cross-cultural adapted and validated German version of the FFI to generate a data pool using the results of 625 individuals, including staff and visitors to our hospital and excluding persons scheduled for foot surgery or in after-treatment.

Results:

Mean values for FFI-total were calculated: 15.3 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.3-16.9), 14.9 points for FFI-pain (CI, 13.3-16.5), and 15.6 for FFI-disability (CI, 13.8-17.4). Results showed higher values for FFI-total, FFI-pain, and FFI-disability for individuals older than 40 years. In general, normative values showed a tendency for higher values with age. A slightly inconsistent distribution over different age groups with a peak for individuals in their 40s and 50s was observed, especially for FFI-pain. Men had better scores than women. Individuals with previous surgery showed lower scores in their respective score.

Conclusions:

Our data calculated normative values for a German-speaking cohort for FFI-total as well as for both subscales FFI-pain and FFI-disability. Our data quantified the increase of FFI-total, FFI-pain, and FFI-disability normative values with age but also showed a slightly inconsistent distribution of normative values over all age groups. We demonstrated higher normative values for women and slightly higher normative values for individuals with previous foot or ankle surgery.

Level of Evidence:

II, prospective comparative study

Keywords

assessment pain disability patient-reported outcome measure

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Askew

Cook

Revicki

Cella

Amtmann

Evidence from diverse clinical populations supports clinical validity of PROMIS pain interference and pain behavior. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:103-111.

Bal

Aydog

Cakci

Foot deformities in rheumatoid arthritis and relevance of foot function index. Clin Rheumatol. 2006;25(5):671-675.

Baldassin

Gomes

Beraldo

PS.

Effectiveness of prefabricated and customized foot orthoses made from low-cost foam for noncomplicated plantar fasciitis: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(4):701-706.

Budiman-Mak

Conrad KJ Roach

KE.

The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(6):561-570.

Budiman-Mak

Conrad

Mazza

Stuck

RM.

A review of the foot function index and the foot function index—revised

J Foot Ankle Res. 2013;6(1):5.

Button

Pinney

A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system?

Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25(8):521-525.

DeVine

Norvell

Ecker

. Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery. Spine. 2011;36(21)(suppl):S69-S74.

Dufour

Casey

Golightly

Hannan

MT.

Characteristics associated with hallux valgus in a population-based foot study of older adults. Arthritis Care Res. 2014;66(12):1880-1886.

Ellert

Bellach

BM.

The SF-36 in the Federal Health Survey—description of a current normal sample. Gesundheitswesen. 1999;61(suppl 2):S184-S190.

10.

Ferreira-Valente

Pais-Ribeiro

Jensen

MP.

Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain. 2011;152(10):2399-2404.

11.

Guyton

Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(10):779-787.

12.

Hecht

Lin

TJ.

Hallux valgus. Med Clin North Am. 2014;98(2):227-232.

13.

Kitaoka

Alexander

Adelaar

Nunley

Myerson

Sanders

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

14.

Kuyvenhoven

Gorter

Zuithoff

Budiman-Mak

Conrad

Post

MW.

The Foot Function Index with verbal rating scales (FFI-5pt): a clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. J Rheumatol. 2002;29(5):1023-1028.

15.

Menz

Gill

Taylor

Hill

CL.

Age and gender differences in disabling foot pain using different definitions of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:243-252.

16.

Muradin

van der Heide

HJ.

The foot function index is more sensitive to change than the Leeds Foot Impact Scale for evaluating rheumatoid arthritis patients after forefoot or hindfoot reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2016;40(4):745-749.

17.

Naal

Impellizzeri

Huber

Rippstein

PF.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index for use in German-speaking patients with foot complaints. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(12):1222-1228.

18.

Naal

Impellizzeri

Rippstein

PF.

Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty?

Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2010;468(3):815-826.

19.

Nix

Vicenzino

Smith

MD.

Foot pain and functional limitation in healthy adults with hallux valgus: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:197-207.

20.

Roddy

Zhang

Doherty

Prevalence and associations of hallux valgus in a primary care population. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(6):857-862.

21.

Schalet

Hays

Jensen

Beaumont

Fries

Cella

Validity of PROMIS physical function measures in diverse clinical samples. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:112-118.

22.

Schneider

Knahr

Scoring in forefoot surgery: a statistical evaluation of single variables and rating systems. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69(5):498-504.

23.

Schneider

Knahr

Poor agreement between prospective and retrospective assessment of hallux surgery using the AOFAS Hallux Scale. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(12):1062-1066.

24.

Schneider

Jurenitsch

St.

Normative data for the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes clinical rating system. Int Orthop. 2016;40(2):301-306.

25.

Schrier

Palmen

Verheyen

Jansen

Koëter

Patient-reported outcome measures in hallux valgus surgery: a review of literature. Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;21(1):11-15.

26.

SooHoo

Shuler

Fleming

; American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24(1):50-55.

27.

SooHoo

Vyas

Samimi

Responsiveness of the foot function index, AOFAS clinical rating systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(11):930-934.

28.

Stropek

Dvorak

Arthroscopic treatment for calcaneal spur syndrome. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2008;75(5):363-368.

29.

Toolan

Wright Quinones

Cunningham

Brage

ME.

An evaluation of the use of retrospectively acquired preoperative AOFAS clinical rating scores to assess surgical outcome after elective foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(10):775-778.

30.

Ware

Kosinski

Keller

SD.

SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User’s Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1994.

31.

Liang

Hou

WH.

Reliability and validity of the Taiwan Chinese version of the Foot Function Index. J Formos Med Assoc. 2008;107(2):111-118.