4.5 Article

Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) in forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders

期刊

ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA
卷 85, 期 2, 页码 187-194

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2014.889979

关键词

-

资金

  1. Region Skane
  2. ALF
  3. SUS Hospital Foundations
  4. Kock Foundation
  5. Herman Jarnhardt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose - The self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) is a questionnaire designed to evaluate disorders of the foot and ankle, but it is only validated for arthritis in the ankle. We validated SEFAS in patients with forefoot, midfoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders. Patients and methods - 118 patients with forefoot disorders and 106 patients with hindfoot or ankle disorders completed the SEFAS, the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS), SF-36, and EQ-5D before surgery. We evaluated construct validity for SEFAS versus FAOS, SF-36, and EQ-5D; floor and ceiling effects; test-retest reliability (ICC); internal consistency; and agreement. Responsiveness was evaluated by effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) 6 months after surgery. The analyses were done separately in patients with forefoot disorders and hindfoot/ankle disorders. Results - Comparing SEFAS to the other scores, convergent validity (when correlating foot-specific questions) and divergent validity (when correlating foot-specific and general questions) were confirmed. SEFAS had no floor and ceiling effects. In patients with forefoot disorders, ICC was 0.92 (CI: 0.85-0.96), Cronbach's a was 0.84, ES was 1.29, and SRM was 1.27. In patients with hindfoot or ankle disorders, ICC was 0.93 (CI: 0.88-0.96), Cronbach's a was 0.86, ES was 1.05, and SRM was 0.99. Interpretation - SEFAS has acceptable validity, reliability, and responsiveness in patients with various forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders. SEFAS is therefore an appropriate patientreported outcome measure (PROM) for these patients, even in national registries.

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