Reliability and Validity of the Persian Version of the Foot Function Index in Patients with Foot Disorders

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Clinical Research Unit, Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Background: Foot function index (FFI) is a worthy subjective patient reported outcome measures (PROM) tool for
evaluation of the outcomes of medical interventions on foot and ankle. This study was conducted to assess the validity
of the Persian version of the foot function index (FFI).
Methods: After translating the original FFI into Persian, back-translation was performed on the agreed Persian version
and the final version was established. A total of 113 Persian-speaking patients with foot and ankle problems were
enrolled in this study and were asked to fill in the FFI.
Results: The Cronbach’s alpha for subsections of FFI and MOXFQ was above 0.8 and 0.7, respectively, while it was
0.95 and 0.93 for total FFI and MOXFQ, respectively. The ICC for all subsections of MOXFQ and FFI was above 0.7.
The Pearson’s correlation coefficient for all subsections of FFI and MOXFQ was significant (P<0.01).
Conclusion: The Persian version of FFI is valid and reproducible in Persian speaking population.
Level of evidence: IV

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Hill CL, Gill TK, Menz HB, Taylor AW. Prevalence and
correlates of foot pain in a population-based study:
the North West Adelaide health study. J Foot Ankle
Res. 2008; 1(1):2.
2. Kuyvenhoven MM, Gorter KJ, Zuithoff P, Budiman-Mak
E, Conrad KJ, 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):1023-8.
3. Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, et
al. A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes
of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for
hallux valgus. Qual Life Res. 2006; 15(7):1211-22.
4. Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P,
et al. Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford Foot
Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-
36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle
surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(2):215-21.
5. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad K, Stuck R, Matters M.
Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a
revised Foot Function Index. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;
27(7):519-27.
6. Rutkowski R, Gałczyńska-Rusin M, Gizińska M,
Straburzyński-Lupa M, Zdanowska A, Romanowski
MW, et al. Adaptation and validation of the foot
function index-revised short form into Polish. Biomed
Res Int. 2017; 2017(7):6051698.
7. Jorgensen JE, Andreasen J, Rathleff MS. Translation
and validation of the Danish Foot Function Index (FFIDK).
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015; 25(4):e408-13.
8. Schneider W, Jurenitsch S. Age- and sex-related
normative data for the foot function index in a
German-speaking cohort. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;
37(11):1238-42.
9. Vetrano M, Vulpiani MC, Erroi D, Vadala A, Ferretti A,
Saraceni VM. Cross-cultural adaptation and reliability
of the Italian version of the Foot Function Index
(FFI-I) for patients with plantar fasciitis. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness. 2014; 54(5):636-43.
10. Venditto T, Tognolo L, Rizzo RS, Iannuccelli C, Di Sante
L, Trevisan M, et al. 17-Italian foot function index
with numerical rating scale: development, reliability,
and validity of a modified version of the original foot
function index. Foot. 2015; 25(1):12-8.
11. Martinelli N, Scotto GM, Sartorelli E, Bonifacini
C, Bianchi A, Malerba F. Reliability, validity and
responsiveness of the Italian version of the Foot
Function Index in patients with foot and ankle
diseases. Qual Life Res. 2014; 23(1):277-84.
12. Paez-Moguer J, Budiman-Mak E, Cuesta-Vargas AI.
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot
Function Index to Spanish. Foot Ankle Surg. 2014;
20(1):34-9.
13. Yi LC, Cabral AC, Kamonseki DH, Budiman-Mak E,
Vidotto MC. Translation and cultural adaptation of
the revised foot function index for the Portuguese
language: FFI-R Brazil. Sao Paulo Med J. 2017;
135(6):573-7.
14. Stéfani KC, Pereira MV Filho, Oliveira PR, Wun PYL.
Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the
foot function index - revised (FFI-R). Acta Ortop Bras.
2017; 25(5):188-93.
15. Pourtier-Piotte C, Pereira B, Soubrier M, Thomas E,
Gerbaud L, Coudeyre E. French validation of the Foot
Function Index (FFI). Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;
58(5):276-82.
16. Gonzalez-Sanchez M, Ruiz-Munoz M, Li GZ, Cuesta-
Vargas AI. Chinese cross-cultural adaptation and
validation of the Foot Function Index as tool to
measure patients with foot and ankle functional
limitations. Disabil Rehabil. 2018; 40(17):2056-61.
17. Huh JW, Eun IS, Ko YC, Park MJ, Hwang KM, Park SH,
et al. Reliability and validity of the Korean version
of the foot function index. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;
55(4):759-61.
18. In TS, Jung JH, Kim K, Jung KS, Cho HY. The reliability
and validity of the Korean version of the foot function
index for patients with foot complaints. J Phys Ther
Sci. 2017; 29(1):53-6.
19. Anaforoglu Kulunkoglu B, Firat N, Yildiz NT, Alkan A.
Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the
Foot Function Index in patients with foot disorders.
Turk J Med Sci. 2018; 48(3):476-83.
20. Yoosefinejad AK, Ghalamghash R. The evaluation and
prevalence of foot problems among Iranian students
using “alfoots” company scanner. Health Sci J. 2014;
8(3):393-9.
21. Agel J, Beskin JL, Brage M, Guyton GP, Kadel NJ,
Saltzman CL, et al. Reliability of the foot function
index: a report of the AOFAS outcomes committee.
Foot Ankle Int. 2005; 26(11):962-7.
22. Kuyvenhoven MM, Gorter KJ, Zuithoff P, Budiman-Mak
E, Conrad KJ, 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):1023-8.
23. Mousavian A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Birjandinejad
A, Omidi-Kashani F, Kachooei AR. Translation and
cultural adaptation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot
Questionnaire (MOXFQ) into Persian language. Foot.
2015; 25(4):224-7.
24. Ebrahimzadeh MH, Makhmalbaf H, Birjandinejad A,
Keshtan FG, Hoseini HA, Mazloumi SM. The Western
Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis
Index (WOMAC) in persian speaking patients
with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2014;
2(1):57-62.
25. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health
measurement scales: a practical guide to their
development and use. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, USA; 2015.
26. Wu SH, Liang HW, Hou WH. Reliability and validity of
the taiwan chinese version of the foot function index.
J Formos Med Assoc. 2008; 107(2):111-8.
27. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Huber M, 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):1222-8.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 7, Issue 3
May 2019
Pages 291-296

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 07 January 2019
  • Revise Date: 14 April 2019
  • Accept Date: 02 March 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics