4.5 Article

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Foot Function Index in patients with foot and ankle diseases

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 277-284

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0435-4

关键词

Italian FFI; Validation; Foot surgery; Clinical outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to translate the Foot Function Index (FFI) into Italian, to perform a cross-cultural adaptation and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Italian version of FFI. The Italian FFI was developed according to the recommended forward/backward translation protocol and evaluated in patients with foot and ankle diseases. Feasibility, reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)], internal consistency [Cronbach's alpha (CA)], construct validity (correlation with the SF-36 and a visual analogue scale (VAS) assessing for pain), responsiveness to surgery were assessed. The standardized effect size and standardized response mean were also evaluated. A total of 89 patients were recruited (mean age 51.8 +/- A 13.9 years, range 21-83). The Italian version of the FFI consisted in 18 items separated into a pain and disability subscales. CA value was 0.95 for both the subscales. The reproducibility was good with an ICC of 0.94 and 0.91 for pain and disability subscales, respectively. A strong correlation was found between the FFI and the scales of the SF-36 and the VAS with related content, particularly in the areas of physical function and pain was observed indicating good construct validity. After surgery, the mean FFI improved from 55.9 +/- A 24.8 to 32.4 +/- A 26.3 for the pain subscale and from 48.8 +/- A 28.8 to 24.9 +/- A 23.7 for the disability subscale (P < 0.01). The Italian version of the FFI showed satisfactory psychometric properties in Italian patients with foot and ankle diseases. Further testing in different and larger samples is required in order to ensure the validity and reliability of this score.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据