Weel Hanneke, Zwiers Ruben, Azim Donija, Sierevelt Inger N, Haverkamp Daniel, van Dijk C Niek, Kerkhoffs Gino M M J
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academical Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, P.O. Box 1006, 1006 BK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Apr;24(4):1348-54. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3480-9. Epub 2014 Dec 25.
The aim of the study was to develop a Dutch language version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) and evaluate its measurement properties according to the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) definitions.
A forward-backward translation procedure was performed and subsequently the Dutch version of the FAAM was evaluated for its reliability and validity in 369 patients with a variety of foot and ankle complaints. The reliability was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, test-retest reliability), Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency), the standard error of measurement and the minimal detectable change (MDC). Additionally, this was done for athletes. The construct validity was assessed by the use of Spearman's correlation coefficient between FAAM domains and similar and contradictory domains of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, Short Form 36 and the Numeric Rating Scale for pain.
The ICC of the subscales ranged from 0.62 to 0.86. Cronbach's alpha's minimum was 0.97. At individual level, the MDC ranged from 23.9 to 44.7 and at group level from 2.77 to 4.32. In the subgroup of athletes, the reliability was higher. The hypothesized correlations of the construct validity were supported by an 80% confirmation rate.
The Dutch version of the FAAM met adequate measurement properties, although the reliability is not optimal. The FAAM-Sport subscale is more useful in athletes and the FAAM-Sport % seems not to contribute. In athletes with various foot and ankle symptoms, the FAAM can be used for functional assessment and follow-up at group level. For the general population, the FAAM is less appropriate.
Diagnostic study, Level I.
本研究旨在开发足踝能力测量量表(FAAM)的荷兰语版本,并根据健康测量工具选择的基于共识的标准(COSMIN)定义评估其测量属性。
执行了正向-反向翻译程序,随后在369例患有各种足踝疾病的患者中评估了FAAM荷兰语版本的信度和效度。通过计算组内相关系数(ICC,重测信度)、克朗巴哈α系数(内部一致性)、测量标准误差和最小可检测变化(MDC)来评估信度。此外,对运动员也进行了上述评估。通过使用FAAM各领域与足踝结局评分、简短健康调查问卷36(Short Form 36)和疼痛数字评定量表的相似及矛盾领域之间的斯皮尔曼相关系数来评估结构效度。
各子量表的ICC范围为0.62至0.86。克朗巴哈α系数最小值为0.97。在个体水平上,MDC范围为23.9至44.7,在组水平上为2.77至4.32。在运动员亚组中,信度更高。结构效度的假设相关性得到了80%的确认率支持。
FAAM荷兰语版本具有足够的测量属性,尽管信度并非最佳。FAAM-运动子量表在运动员中更有用,而FAAM-运动百分比似乎没有作用。在患有各种足踝症状的运动员中,FAAM可用于组水平的功能评估和随访。对于一般人群,FAAM不太适用。
诊断性研究,I级。