Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Another bl....y outcome measure for the foot

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by Craig Payne, Oct 1, 2005.

  1. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Does anyone share my frustraton at the plethora of outcome tools that have been developed for the foot :( . When will it stop? When will people actually stop developing them and start doing research that actually uses them :mad:

    Now we have this one:
    Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders I: development of standard rating system.
    J Orthop Sci. 2005 Sep;10(5):457-65
    Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders II: interclinician and intraclinician reliability and validity of the newly established standard rating scales and Japanese Orthopaedic Association rating scale.
    J Orthop Sci. 2005 Sep;10(5):466-74.
     
  2. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    Young Craig , would I be right in detecting a note of frustration here?

    All I can say is thank 'crunchie', peeps are beinging to realise the state is measurable, and maybe when they do get round to the research bit, we can have some decent base line data.


    How are you anyway?

    Cheers
    Cameron
     
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    It just seems as though people are more keen to develop yet another outcome tool, rather than spend that time using the ones we have. .... why waste resources reinventing the wheel? We should be getting on with doing research on, for eg, diferences in outcomes between 2 interventions using outcome tools we now have, rather than develop new tools to measure the outcomes!!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 1, 2005
  4. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    Here ia another ...aggggghhhhhh:

    Evidence of Validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM).
    Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Nov;26(11):968-83.
    Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM.
     
  5. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Craig,

    Irrespective of the validity of carrying out these pieces of research, I would like to believe that diurnal variation figured at least somewhere in each of the studies you mention - but I suspect not.

    If scientific method is being used to gather data and correlate differences, then diurnal or circadian variation would really have to be part of that scientific method. Without it the results are going to be skewed, to say the least.

    Cheers,
    davidh
     
  6. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    and another

    Proposal of a questionnaire to evaluate the foot in the rheumatic diseases.
    Clin Ter. 2006 May-Jun;157(3):199-205
    Coaccioli S, Pinoca F, Puxeddu A
     
  7. Adrew Jones

    Adrew Jones Welcome New Poster

    Foot Outcome measures studies:

    Craig and others
    I am looking to use a foot outcome tool for clinical audit process.
    The NZ Ministry of health has good information on how this should be done but i was wondering what is the best ,user friendly outcome tool to serve this purpose?
    Any ideas,suggestions

    andrew jones :)
     
  8. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    ...they just keep on coming...

    A new foot and ankle outcome score: Questionnaire based, subjective, Visual-Analogue-Scale, validated and computerized
    Foot and Ankle Surgery Article in Press
     
  9. Measurements

    THEY'RE COMING OUT OF THE WALLS MAN!!!!! :eek:

    With you on this one Craig. Thing is its much easier to design systems than to use them. Thats why the NHS re cycles every few years rather than trying to make the current system work! Such is life.

    Robert
     
  10. Bloody hell, LOL, think u hve given me ample to work with there.. Am new to both the site and my new found own deep rooted belief in the enormity of the possibilities of our profession, thanks for enhancing it further.
    D
     
  11. A number of factors may account for the growing library of tools. The first references listed here highlight the perceived need to develop population specific tools. Or, the lack of applicability of a tool developed for use in one "population" to meet the needs of another. If tools have questions/ factors which are somewhat parochial then their use is limited to that "parish". Similarly, many of these tools are condition specific and thus applicable to a limited target, for example patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Another limiting factor is that these tools are usually designed to answer a specific question and may not provide the answer to all questions.

    Perhaps (as ever) an even stronger driver is that of potential financial gains. Developers tend to copyright the tools and sell them on, rather than allowing free use. Thus, it is less expensive to develop a new tool and /or the developer gains financially from its development.

    David's point re: diurnal variation is debatable. All of the outcome tools capture a specific response at a specific instant in time, so too do all clinical measurements. Researchers realise this and take account of it. By evaluating the within-day and between-day error as part of the development process, these variations can be quantified. If large within / between day error is observed the tool could be deemed to have poor repeatability. Thus, if one wished to study diurnal variation you would need to partition the measurement error from the "real" variation- this is not as simple as it first appears. I should be interested to learn of podiatric methodologies that have achieved this.
     
  12. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    another one

    A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: Validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus.
    Qual Life Res. 2006 Sep 25;
    Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, Jenkinson C
     
  13. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Responsiveness of the Foot Function Index, AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems, and SF-36 after Foot and Ankle Surgery.
    Foot Ankle Int. 2006 Nov;27(11):930-4
    Soohoo NF, Vyas R, Samimi D
     
  14. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS): Development and Validation.
    Am J Sports Med. 2006 Dec 7;
    Nilsson-Helander K, Thomeé R, Grävare-Silbernagel K, Thomeé P, Faxén E, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J
     
  15. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Reliability and validity of the american orthopaedic foot and ankle society clinical rating scale: a pilot study for the hallux and lesser toes.
    Foot Ankle Int. 2006 Dec;27(12):1014-9
    Baumhauer JF, Nawoczenski DA, Digiovanni BF, Wilding GE.
     
  16. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: A systematic review.
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007 Jan 18;8(1):6
    Eechaute CJ, Vaes PH, Van Aerschot L, Asman S, Duquet W
     
  17. Paul B

    Paul B Active Member

    Craig,

    As you suggest, there'se a never ending stream of instruments. Its what you do with them thats important. The "research question being answered" is more relevant than the tool, providing the tool works properly.

    PB
     
  18. Paul B

    Paul B Active Member

    Craig, I've just come across The AO Handbook of "Musculoskeletal Outcomes Measures and Instruments (published by AO and Thieme, 2005), authors Suk, Hanson, Norvell & Helfet.

    The Foot Health Status Questionnaire ( FHSQ ) is ranked independently by the AO as the sign most valid measure of foot health (out of 30 instruments evaluated to date). Can you pass that onto Karl for his information?

    Regards

    Paul
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2007
  19. Paul B

    Paul B Active Member

    [2006] [FRI0573-AHP] FOOT HEALTH STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE: TRANSLATION AND VALIDATION OF THE BRAZILIAN VERSION (FHSQ-BR)

    C. Tanaka1,A.F.B. Ferreira 1 , M.B. Ferraz 2 , I.M.M. Laurindo 1 , P.T. Rodrigues 1 1Rheumatology, University of São Paulo, 2Rheumatology, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    The purpose of this study was to conduct a cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ) evaluating its measurement properties. All ten domains of the FHSQ were translated into Portuguese by two Brazilian translators creating Version 1. This version was back-translated by two native English-speaking teachers who made suggestions for Version 1, creating Version 2. A multidisciplinary committee was formed to test the instrument's semantic, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual equivalences. After being reformulated and approved by the committee, Version 3 was pre-tested on a group of patients from the Rheumatology Service of the Hospital das Clínicas. They answered this version and made suggestions for the better understanding of the instructions, questions and response option. The FHSQ-Br was then created. The translated and adapted version was submitted to field test on a study group composed of sixty-five Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients to evaluate test-retest reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. The construct validity of the FHSQ-Br was tested correlating the scores to clinical and laboratory parameters commonly used to assess RA (Health Assessment Questionnaire; Numbered Rating Scale for foot pain; foot X-rays; erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein). The cultural adaptation of the FHSQ was successfully accomplished, since patients suggested changes in only three items of the instrument during the pre-test phase. In the field test, the intra-class correlation coefficients showed high reliability for both intra- and inter-observer correlations. Internal consistency coefficients were statistically significant (p<0.05) for all domains. As for the evaluation of the construct validity, each domain revealed correlations with a specific group of parameters, according to what the domains were intended to measure. The FHSQ was cross-culturally adapted generating a reliable, consistent and valid instrument. This study has proven the FHSQ-Br to be a useful tool to evaluate foot health in systemic diseases and is easily adaptable to different cultures.

    Miscellaneous forms of clinical care

    Citation: Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65(Suppl II):669

    FYI

    http://www.fhsq.homestead.com/
     
  20. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Reliability and validity of the subjective component of the american orthopaedic foot and ankle society clinical rating scales.
    J Foot Ankle Surg. 2007 Mar-Apr;46(2):65-74
    Ibrahim T, Beiri A, Azzabi M, Best AJ, Taylor GJ, Menon DK
     
  21. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle.
    J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007 Feb;37(2):72-84
     
  22. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validation of a self-report instrument for assessment of hallux valgus.
    Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007 Mar 24
     
  23. musmed

    musmed Active Member

    Dear All

    Thse Kappa scores are about the same as the weather bureau.

    They look good if you work there but useless if you rely upon them

    Musmed

    www.musmed.com.au
     
  24. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Correlation of the AOFAS Scores with a Generic Health Qualy Score in Foot and Ankle Surgery.
    Foot Ankle Int. 2007 Apr;28(4):494-8
     
  25. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The Foot Function Index now has a Chinese version:

    Reliability and validity of the taiwan chinese version of the foot function index.
    Wu SH, Liang HW, Hou WH.
    J Formos Med Assoc. 2008 Feb;107(2):111-8.
     
  26. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Development and validation of a Greek language version of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index.
    Kaoulla P, Frescos N, Menz HB.
    Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Jun 1;6(1):39. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  27. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function.
    Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE.
    Qual Life Res. 2008 Aug 17. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  28. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the foot function index for use in german-speaking patients with foot complaints.
    Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Huber M, Rippstein PF.
    Foot Ankle Int. 2008 Dec;29(12):1222-8.
    Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Foot and Ankle Center, Schulthess Clinic, Lengghalde 2, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland. florian.naal@gmail.com.

     
  29. pscotne

    pscotne Active Member


    :morning: Sounds like the public service! :deadhorse:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2009
  30. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score.
    Göksel Karatepe A, Günaydın R, Kaya T, Karlıbaş U, Ozbek G.
    Rheumatol Int. 2009 Apr 16. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  31. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Defining disabling foot pain in older adults: further examination of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index.
    Roddy E, Muller S, Thomas E.
    Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009 Jun 18. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  32. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Italian translation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire, with re-assessment of reliability and validity.
    Marinozzi A, Martinelli N, Panascì M, Cancilleri F, Franceschetti E, Vincenzi B, Di Martino A, Denaro V.
    Qual Life Res. 2009 Jul 9. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  33. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Which Are the Most Frequently Used Outcome Instruments in Studies on Total Ankle Arthroplasty?
    Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Rippstein PF.
    Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Aug 12. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  34. Petcu Daniel

    Petcu Daniel Active Member

    I've seen until now outcomes, measured based on questionnaire . It is not the same problem with the kinetic and kinematic parameters measured with different instruments : force platform, pressure map, in-shoe pressure system, electrogoniometers, 2d video analysis, 3d video analysis ...?
    For example,
    ------the influence of shoes on tibial rotation :
    - "Footwear and Foot Orthotic Effectiveness Research: A New Approach", Mark W. Cornwall, Thomas G. McPoil - one video camera / Tibial Pointer Device [2 markers ] / walking

    - "Change in tibial rotation of barefoot versus shod running", M. Fukanoa, Y. Naganoa, H. Idab and T. Fukubayashi - eight-camera MAC3D system / twenty-five reflective markers / running

    [May be it is not the best example because first article is related with walking an the second with running...]

    ------analysis of hindfoot motion :

    - "Foot and ankle kinematics in patients with posterior tibial tendon dysfunction", Mary Ellen Ness , Jason Long , Richard Marks , Gerald Harris - hindfoot represented by 3 markers [Milwaukee Foot Model], 15 camera motion analysis system

    -" Relationship Between Three Static Angles of the Rearfoot and the Pattern of Rearfoot Motion During Walking" ,Thomas G. McPoil, Mark W. Cornwall - hindfoot represented by calcaneal bisection, one camera - two dimensional video recordings...

    Which are the relation between "foot paradigm" and "outcomes measure" from a clinical point of view ?

    Daniel
     
  35. Andrew Scicluna

    Andrew Scicluna Welcome New Poster

    Hi

    I am a state registered podiatrist from Malta, currently reading a PhD programme at Salford University. As part of my studies I am trying to identify a tool which can measure both the foot health and the social aspect of podiatric intervention on frail elderly. I tried the FHSQ but it does not seem sensitive enough. Any suggestions please ...
     
  36. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Reliability and validity of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score: a validation study from Iran.
    Negahban H, Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Sohani SM, Askari M, Fanian H, Parnianpour M.
    Clin Rheumatol. 2010 Feb 7. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  37. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Reliability and validity of the Persian version of Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders.
    Mazaheri M, Salavati M, Negahban H, Sohani SM, Taghizadeh F, Feizi A, Karimi A, Parnianpour M.
    Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010 Mar 22. [Epub ahead of print]
     
  38. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Evaluation of two self-referent foot health instruments
    In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 30 August 2010
    Robert Trevethan
     
  39. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Comparison of different outcome instruments following foot and ankle trauma.
    Goldstein CL, Schemitsch E, Bhandari M, Mathew G, Petrisor BA.
    Foot Ankle Int. 2010 Dec;31(12):1075-80.
     
  40. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Evidence for Validity and Reliability of a French Version of the FAAM.
    Borloz S, Crevoisier X, Deriaz O, Ballabeni P, Martin RL, Luthi F.
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Feb 8;12(1):40. [Epub ahead of print]

     
Loading...

Share This Page