SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2018 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 3

Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Foot Function Index in patients with foot disorders

Nazım Tolgahan YILDIZ
Afra ALKAN
Neslihan FIRAT
Bahar ANAFOROĞLU KÜLÜNKOĞLU
Pages
476–483
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This tool can be used in routine practice and clinical research for evaluating footdisorders and foot-related functional impairments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: The Foot Function Index (FFI) is a valid, reliable, and widely used self-reported questionnaire for the foot.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Constructvalidity was examined for correlations with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire.Results: Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.821 and 0.938.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This tool can be used in routine practice and clinical research for evaluating footdisorders and foot-related functional impairments.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background/aim: The Foot Function Index (FFI) is a valid, reliable, and widely used self-reported questionnaire for the foot. Thepurpose of this study was to provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the FFI (FFI-TR) among patientswith foot disorders such as plantar fasciitis, hallux valgus, pes planus, and hammertoe deformities.Materials and methods: One hundred and fifty-nine patients with foot disorders were enrolled. The psychometric properties of thepreviously translated and adapted FFI-TR were assessed. The internal consistency and test–retest reliability were evaluated. Constructvalidity was examined for correlations with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire.Results: Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.821 and 0.938. Reproducibility was satisfactory, with intraclass correlation coefficient valuesbetween 0.960 and 0.985. Weak correlations were found between FFI-TR and some SF-36 subscales for validity (|rho| < 0.30). Therewas a ceiling effect for the activity limitation subscale. There were no floor effects for any items or application times. Good accuracy wasdetermined for all scores.Conclusion: FFI-TR is a reliable and valid scale. This tool can be used in routine practice and clinical research for evaluating footdisorders and foot-related functional impairments.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIZ, N. T., ALKAN, A., FIRAT, N., KÜLÜNKOĞLU, B. A. (2022). Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Foot Function Index in patients with foot disorders. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 3, 476–483. https://ajindex.com/articles/610335

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Menz HB, Jordan KP, Roddy E, Croft PR. Characteristics of primary care consultations for musculoskeletal foot and ankle problems in the UK. Rheumatology 2010; 49: 1391-1398.
  2. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Mazza J, Stuck RM. A review of the Foot Function Index and the Foot Function Index–Revised. J Foot Ankle Res 2013; 6: 5. Tahririan MA, Motififard M, Tahmasebi MN, Siavashi B. Plantar fasciitis. J Res Med Sci 2012; 17: 799-804.
  3. Nix S, Smith M, Vicenzino B. Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res 2010; 3: 21. Tenenbaum S, Hershkovich O, Gordon B, Bruck N, Thein R, Derazne E, Tzur Di Shamiss A, Afek A. Flexible pes planus in adolescents: body mass index, body height, and gender—an epidemiological study. Foot Ankle Int 2013; 34: 811-817.
  4. 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: 276-282.
  5. 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: 111-122.
  6. 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: 277-284.
  7. Agel J, Beskin JL, Brage M, Guyton GP, Kadel NJ, Saltzman CL, Sands AK, Sangeorzan BJ, SooHoo NF, Stroud CC et al. Reliability of the Foot Function Index: a report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee. Foot Ankle Int 2005; 26: 962-967.
  8. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Huber M, Rippstein PF. Crosscultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index for use in German-speaking patients with foot complaints. Foot Ankle Int 2008; 29: 1222-1231.
  9. Venditto T, Tognolo L, Rizzo RS, Iannuccelli C, Di Sante L, Trevisan M, Maggiolini FR, Santilli V, Ioppolo F. 17-Italian Foot Function Index with numerical rating scale: development, reliability, and validity of a modified version of the original foot function index. Foot (Edinb) 2015; 25: 12-18.
  10. Pod JPM, Budiman-Mak E, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index to Spanish. Foot Ankle Surg 2104; 20: 34-39.
  11. 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: 1023-1028. Martinez