Fonksiyonel Ayak Bileği İnstabilitesi Tanımlama Ölçeğinin çevrimiçi ve kağıt üzerinden uygulanmasının eşdeğerliği

Abstract

Amaç: Anketlerin çevrimiçi kullanımı, katılımcıların daha kolay erişim sağlaması, daha düşük maliyet, daha hızlı tamamlama ve etkili veri yönetimi gibi kağıt versiyonuna göre birçok avantaj sunar. Bu nedenle, hasta ve katılımcı yükünü ve veri toplama maliyetini azaltmak için klinik uygulamalarda ve araştırmalarda geçerli ve güvenilir verileri uzaktan toplamak önemlidir. Çalışmanın birincil amacı; Fonksiyonel Ayak Bileği İnstabilitesi Tanımlama (FABİT) ölçeğinin hem İngilizce hem de Türkçe versiyonlarında çevrimiçi uygulamasını geliştirmekti. İkincil amaç ise FABİT ölçeğinin çevrimiçi versiyonunun her iki dilde geçerliğini ve güvenirliğini test etmekti. Yöntem: FABİT ölçeğinin Türkçe ve İngilizce versiyonları hem kağıt hem de çevrimiçi uygulamada kullanıldı. Anket uygulama yöntemlerinin geçerliği (kağıt ve çevrimiçi) etki büyüklüğü (Cohen d) ile analiz edildi. Ek olarak, uyum sınırları Bland ve Altman grafikleriyle ve modalite (anket uygulaması) sıra etkisi t-testleri ile analiz edildi. Çevrimiçi versiyonların test-tekrar test güvenirliği Sınıf İçi Korelasyon Katsayısı (ICC) kullanılarak analiz edildi. Bulgular: İngilizce (30,3±5,8 yıl, 16 kadın, 24,0±3,4 kg/m2) ve Türkçe (27,4±7,7 yıl, 17 kadın, 23,3±3,9 kg/m2) konuşanlar arasında eşit olarak dağıtılmış 60 katılımcı çalışmaya dahil edildi. Her iki dilde (İngilizce; d=0,13, Türkçe; d=0,12) FABİT ölçeği için uygulama yöntemleri arasında herhangi bir sıra etkisi olmaksızın istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktu (tümü p>0,05). Test-tekrar test güvenilirliği her iki çevrimiçi sürüm için de mükemmeldi (İngilizce; ICC=0,96, Türkçe; ICC=0,98). Sonuç: IdFAI ölçeğinin hem İngilizce hem de Türkçe çevrimiçi sürümleri geçerli ve güvenilirdi, bu nedenle klinik ve araştırma amaçları için uygundur.

Keywords

• Ayak bileği instabilitesi
• Sonuç ölçekleri
• Dijital
• Geçerlik

Equivalence of online and paper administration of Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) scale

Abstract

Purpose: Online use of questionnaires offers many advantages over paper version such as easier participant access, lower cost, faster completion and efficient data management. Thus, it is important to collect valid and reliable data remotely in clinical care and research in order to decrease the patient and participant burden and cost of data collection. The primary aim was to develop online administration of Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) scale in both English and Turkish versions. Secondary aim was to test validity and reliability of the online version of IdFAI scale in both languages. Methods: Turkish and English versions of the IdFAI scale were used with both paper and online administration. Validity of the questionnaire administration methods (paper vs online) were analysed with Cohen’s d effect sizes. Additionally, limits of agreement with Bland and Altman plots and modality (questionnaire administration) order effect were analysed with t-tests. Test-retest reliability of the online versions were analysed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Results: 60 participants equally distributed between those who speak English (30.3±5.8 years, 16 females, 24.0±3.4 kg/m2) and Turkish (27.4±7.7 years, 17 females, 23.3±3.9 kg/m2) were recruited. There was no systematic difference between administration methods for the IdFAI scale in both language (English; d=0.13, Turkish; d=0.12) without any order effect (all p>0.05). Test-retest reliability was excellent for both online versions (English; ICC=0.96, Turkish; ICC=0.98). Conclusion: The online versions of the IdFAI scale in both English and Turkish were valid and reliable, therefore being suitable for clinical and research purposes.

Keywords

• Ankle instability
• Outcome measure
• Digital
• Validity
• Reliability

References

1. Eerkes, K. Volleyball injuries. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2012;11:251-256.
2. Fong DT, Chan Y-Y, Mok K-M, et al. Understanding acute ankle ligamentous sprain injury in sports. Sport. Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol 2009;1:14.
3. Augustsson SR, Augustsson J, Thomeé R, et al. Injuries and preventive actions in elite Swedish volleyball. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006;16: 433-440.
4. Simon J, Donahue M, Docherty CL. Critical review of self-reported functional ankle instability measures: A follow up. Phys Ther Sport 2014;15:97-100.
5. Freeman MA, Dean MR, Hanham IW. The etiology and prevention of functional instability of the foot. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1965;47:678-685.
6. Donahue M, Simon J, Docherty CL. Reliability and validity of a new questionnaire created to establish the presence of functional ankle instability: The IdFAI. Athl Train Sport Heal Care. 2013;5:38-43.
7. Gurav RS, Ganu SS, Panhale VP. Reliability of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) scale across different age groups in adults. N Am J Med Sci.2014;6:516-518.
8. Simon J, Donahue M, Docherty C. Development of the identification of functional ankle instability (IdFAI). Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33:755-763.

9. Gribble PA, Delahunr E, Bleakley C, et al. Selection criteria for patients with chronic ankle instability in controlled research: a position statement of the International Ankle Consortium. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43:585-591.
10. Cervera-Garvi P, Marchena-Rodriguez A, Lopezosa-Reca E, et al. Systematic review of the methodological quality of patient-reported outcome measure for patients with chronic ankle instability. Clin Rehabil. 2023;37:1332-1346.
11. Tayfur A, Şendil A, Karakaya J, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of Turkish version of Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) scale. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2020;54:300-304.
12. Ko J, Rosen AB, Brown CN. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validation of the Korean version of the Identification Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI). Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40:3185-3190.
13. Mineta, S, Inami T, Fukano M, et al. The reliability, and discriminative ability of the identification of functional ankle instability questionnaire, Japanese version. Phys Ther. Sport. 2019;35:1-6.
14. Li Y, Gun L, Ko J, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of an ankle instability questionnaire for use in Chinese-speaking population. J Sport Health Sci. 2019;8:555-560.
15. Kordi Ashkezari M, Sahebozamani M, Daneshjoo A, et al. Validity and reliability of the Persian version of “Identification of Functional Ankle Instability” questionnaire in people with lateral ankle sprain. Physical Treatment Specific Physical Therapy. 2019;9:177-182.
16. Omar M, Abdul-Karim S. Validity and reliability of the Malay version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI-M) questionnaire among Malaysian University athletes. Malaysian Orthop J. 2021;15:32-42.
17. Tsekoura M, Billis E, Samada EK, et al. Cross cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Greek version of Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) questionnaire. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021; 27:906-910.
18. Cervera-Garvi P, Ortega-Avila AB, Marchena-Rodriguez A, ET AL. Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaire (IdFAI-Sp). Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44:3221-3227.
19. Beaudart C, Demoulin C, Mehmeti K, et al. Validity and reliability of the French translation of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI). Foot Ankle Surg. 2022;28:756-762.
20. Meeapirak P, Hunsawong T, Chatchawan U, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric properties of the Thai version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI-THAI). Foot Ankle Surg. 2022;28:770-774.
21. Martinez BR, Lopes Suares AD, Lopes Ferreira C, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of the Brazilian version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) questionnaire. Phys Ther Sport. 2018;29:1-8.
22. Khalil A, Docherty C, Elhafez S, et al. Validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaire (IdFAI-Ar) in college-aged population. Phys Ther Sport. 2021;49:250-254.
23. Coons SJ; Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009;12:419-429.
24. Stankevitz D, Larkins L, Baker RT. Electronic patient-reported outcome validation: Disablement in the physically active scale. J Athl Train. 2019;54:319-323.
25. Gudbergsen H; Bartels EM, Krusager P, et al. Test-retest of computerized health status questionnaires frequently used in the monitoring of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized crossover trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:1-8.
26. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008;11:322-333.
27. Morton S, Morrissey D, Valle X, et al. Equivalence of online and clinician administration of a patellar tendinopathy risk factor and severity questionnaire. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2015;25:670-677.
28. Tayfur A, Salles JI, Miller SC, et al. Patellar tendinopathy outcome predictors in jumping athletes: feasibility of measures for a cohort study. Phys Ther Sport. 2020;44:75-84.
29. Calton B, Abedini N, Fratkin M. Telemedicine in the time of Coronavirus. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;60:e12-e14.
30. Thomas P, Baldwin C, Bissett B, et al. Physiotherapy management for COVID-19 in the acute hospital setting: clinical practice recommendations. J Physiother.2020; 66:73-82.
31. Richmond T, Peterson C, Cason J, et al. American Telemedicine Association’s principles for delivering telerehabilitation services. Int. J. Telerehabilitation 2017;9:63-68.
32. Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, et al. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the lysholm score and tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:890-897.
33. Coskun S, Bebis H. Adolesanlarda e-sağlık okuryazarlığı ölçeği: Türkçe Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi. 2015;57:378-384.
34. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth literacy scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8:e27.
35. Tayfur A, Yetiş M, Canlı M. Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Rowan Foot Pain Assessment Questionnaire in Patients with Chronic Foot Pain: A Cross-Cultural Adaptation Study. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Health Sciences. 2023;8:646-652.
36. Zou GY. Sample size formulas for estimating intraclass correlation coefficients with precision and assurance. Stat Med. 2012;31:3972-3981.
37. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155-163.
38. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 1988.
39. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47:931-936.