Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the foot function index in patients with calcaneal heel spur

Year 2018, , 118 - 122, 01.05.2018

Müyesser Okumuş Gülseren Demir Pınar Borman Turgut Kültür , Serap Yörübulut

https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.408694

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Aim: One of the most extensively used questionnaires in studies and clinical trials is the Foot Function Index (FFI). The aim of our study was to evaluate the reliability and the validity of the FFI in Turkish patients with calcaneal heel spur.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in 20014-2015 in Ankara, Turkey with 146 patients with calcaneal heel spur. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software version 20.0. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Cronbach alpha coefficients were used to determine test-retest reliability and internal consistency of FFI. Construct validity was tested by Pearson correlation coefficient approach comparing the correlation of the Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS-pain), foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS) and The Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire with FFI.

Results: A hundred and forty six patients (125 women, 21 men) were enrolled in the study. The mean age of the patients were 46,4±10,3 years. The random ICC for the total FFI and three subscales ranged from 0.74 to 0.99. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranged from 0.78 to 0.83. In terms of validity, there was a significant correlation between the Turkish version of FFI, VAS, some of the sub-scales of FAOS and SF-36 scores (p<0.05).

Conclusion: The Turkish version of FFI was valid and reliable to assess the foot disease in patients with heel spur. It can be used for both in clinic and research studies in the assessment of pain, disability and limitation of the function of the foot.

Keywords

Foot function index, Reliability and validity, Foot diseases

Topuk dikeni olan hastalarda ayak fonksiyon indeksinin Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Ayak Fonksiyon İndeksi (Foot Function Index: FFI) klinik uygulamalar ve araştırmalarda yaygın kullanılan ölçeklerden biridir. Bu araştırmanın amacı FFI’in, topuk dikeni tanısı olan hastalarda Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirliğini çalışmaktır. 

Yöntemler: Verilerin İstatistiksel analizleri SPSS 20.0 paket programı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Test-tekrar test güvenirliğini ve FFI iç tutarlılığını belirlemek için sınıf içi korelasyon katsayıları (ICC) ve Cronbach alfa katsayıları kullanılmıştır. Yapı geçerliği, vizüel analog skalası (VAS-ağrı), ayak ve ayak bileği sonuç skoru (FAOS) ve Kısa Form-36 (SF-36) ile FFI arasındaki ilişki Pearson korelasyon katsayısı ile test edilmiştir.

Bulgular: Çalışmamıza 125’i kadın 21’i erkek olmak üzere 146 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Hastaların yaş ortalaması 46,4± 10,3 yıl idi. Toplam FFI ve üç alt ölçek olan VAS, FAOS ve 

SF-36 için rastgele ICC, 0,74 ile 0,99 arasında bulunmuştur. Cronbach'ın alfa güvenirlik katsayısı en düşük 0,78 ve en büyük 0,83 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Geçerlik açısından ise FFI ile VAS, FAOS ve SF-36 puanlarının bazı alt ölçekleri arasında anlamlı ilişki bulunmuştur (p<0.05).

Sonuç: Bu çalışmada, topuk dikeni tanısı olan hastaları değerlendirmek için kullandığımız FFI'nın Türkçe versiyonun geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu gösterilmiştir. Bu ölçeğin, klinik ve araştırmalarda ayak ağrıları, yetersizlik ve ayak fonksiyonlarını değerlendirmek için hastalara uygulanabileceğini düşünmekteyiz.

Keywords

Ayak fonksiyon indeksi, Geçerlik ve güvenirlik, Ayak hastalıkları

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;1:2. PMID: 18822153. DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-1-2.
• 2. Uysal B, Beyzadeoglu M, Sager O, Demıral S, Gamsız H, Dıncoglan F, Akın M, Dirican B. Role of radiotherapy in the management of heel spur. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(2):387-9. PMID: 24838575. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-014-1482-4.
• 3. Menz HB, Zammit GV, Landorf KB, Munteanu SE. Plantar calcaneal spurs in older people: longitudinal traction or vertical compression? J Foot Ankle Res. 2008 Aug 11;1(1):7. PMID:18822162. DOI:10.1186/1757-1146-1-7.
• 4. Çelik D, Malkoç M, Martin R. Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Rheumatol Int. 2016 Oct;36(10):1469-76. PMID: 27136921. DOI:10.1007/s00296-016-3485-4.
• 5. Lau JT, Mahomed NM, Schon LC. Results of an Internet survey determining the most frequently used ankle scores by AOFAS members. Foot Ankle Int. 205;26:479–482. PMID: 15960915. DOI: 10.1177/107110070502600609.
• 6. Goldstein CL, Schemitsch E, Bhandari M, Mathew G, Pretisor BA. Comparison of different outcome instruments following foot and ankle trauma. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(12):1075–80. PMID: 21189208. DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2010.1075.
• 7. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:72–84. PMID: 17366962. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2403.
• 8. Ibrahim T, Beiri A, Azzabi M, Best AJ, Taylor GJ, Menon DK. Reliability and validity of the subjective component of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Clinical Rating Scales. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2007;46:65–74. PMID: 17331864. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2006.12.002.
• 9. Martinez BR, Staboli IM, Kamonseki DH, Budiman Mak E, Yi LC. Validity and reliability of the Foot Function Index (FFI) questionnaire Brazilian-Portuguese version. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1810. PMID: 27812449. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3507-4.
• 10. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:561–70. PMID: 2037861. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90220-4
• 11. 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(1):1–37. PMID: 23369667. DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-6-5.
• 12. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad K, Stuch R, Matters M. Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(7):519–27.
• 13. 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;26:962–7. PMID: 16842719. DOI: 10.1177/107110070602700707.
• 14. Landorf KB, Radford JA. Minimal important difference: values for the Foot Health Status Questionnaire, Foot Function Index and Visual Analogue Scale. Foot. 2008;18:15–9. PMID: 20465855. DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-3-7.
• 15. Yalıman A, Şen Eİ, Eskiyurt N, Budiman-Mak E. Turkish Translation and Adaptation of Foot Function Index in Patients with Plantar Fasciitis. Turk J Phys Med Rehab. 2014;60:212-22. DOI: 10.5152/tftrd.2014.28086.
• 16. 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. PMID: 23689933. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0435-4.
• 17. 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 Dec;29(12):1222-8. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2008.1222.
• 18. Helliwell P, Reay N, Gilworth G, Redmond A, Slade A, Tennant A, Woodburn J. Development of a foot impact scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53(3):418-22. PMID: 19138487. DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2008.1222.
• 19. Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? Pain. 1997;72(1-2):95–7. PMID: 9272792. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(97)00005-5.
• 20. Karatepe AG, Günaydin R, Kaya T, Karlibaş U, Özbek G.Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Rheumatol Int. 2009;30(2):169-73. doi: 10.1007/s00296-009-0929-0. PMID: 19370349. DOI: 10.1007/s00296-009-0929-0.
• 21. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fisek G, Ölmez N, Memiş A. Kısa Form-36’nın Türkçe Versiyonunun Güvenilirliği ve Geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi. 1999;12(2):102-6.
• 22. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. New York, Oxford University Press. 5th ed. 2015. ISBN: 978-0-19-968521-9.
• 23. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychomerika. 1951;16:297-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.
• 24. Portney L, Watkins M. Foundation of Clinical Research: Applications to practice. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 3th ed. 2009. ISBN-13: 978-0-8036-4657-5.
• 25. 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. PMID: 26343763. DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2015.07.003.
• 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. PMID: 18285243. DOI: 10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60124-2.
• 27. Krukowska J, Wrona J, Sienkiewicz M, Czernicki J. A comparative analysis of analgesic efficacy of ultrasound and shock wave therapy in the treatment of patients with inflammation of the attachment of the plantar fascia in the course of calcaneal spurs. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(9):1289-96. PMID: 27402210. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-016-2503-z.
• 28. Hayta E, Salk I, Gumus C, Tuncay MS, Cetin A. Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy effectively reduces calcaneal spur length and spur-related pain in overweight and obese patients. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017;30:17–22. PMID: 27232085. DOI: 10.3233/BMR-160708.
• 29. 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. PMID: 24480497. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2013.09.005.
• 30. 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):53-56. PMID: 28210038. DOI: 10.1589/jpts.29.53.