We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
VALIDATION STUDY
Validation of foot and ankle outcome score for hallux valgus.
Foot & Ankle International 2012 December
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome questionnaires such as the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) are useful in evaluating results after orthopedic interventions. However, despite being frequently used in the literature, its validity has not been established for forefoot disorders. Our study aimed to validate the FAOS for use in assessing outcomes of hallux valgus surgery.
METHODS: From 2006 to 2009, 195 patients with nonarthritic hallux valgus were included in the construct validity portion of the study. Patients had a SF-36 and a FAOS completed. Forty additional patients, both preoperative and postoperative, were given questionnaires to assess the relevance of each of the FAOS questions as it pertained to their bunions. Patients were also given the FAOS 1 month after the first to assess FAOS reliability. Responsiveness of the FAOS was included with 40 patients who had both preoperative and postoperative FAOS scores.
RESULTS: Four out of five FAOS subscales demonstrated acceptable correlation with the SF-36. The FAOS symptoms subscale showed the least correlation with SF-36, demonstrating the foot-specific nature of the questions. Both preoperative and postoperative patients rated the FAOS quality of life questions as the most relevant. All five subscales achieved acceptable test-retest reliability. The FAOS sports and recreation subscale was the least responsive.
CONCLUSION: Patient-based assessments have become increasingly important in evaluating treatment effectiveness. This study has shown that the FAOS has acceptable construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness in hallux valgus patients and is a useful patient-based tool in assessing these patients.
METHODS: From 2006 to 2009, 195 patients with nonarthritic hallux valgus were included in the construct validity portion of the study. Patients had a SF-36 and a FAOS completed. Forty additional patients, both preoperative and postoperative, were given questionnaires to assess the relevance of each of the FAOS questions as it pertained to their bunions. Patients were also given the FAOS 1 month after the first to assess FAOS reliability. Responsiveness of the FAOS was included with 40 patients who had both preoperative and postoperative FAOS scores.
RESULTS: Four out of five FAOS subscales demonstrated acceptable correlation with the SF-36. The FAOS symptoms subscale showed the least correlation with SF-36, demonstrating the foot-specific nature of the questions. Both preoperative and postoperative patients rated the FAOS quality of life questions as the most relevant. All five subscales achieved acceptable test-retest reliability. The FAOS sports and recreation subscale was the least responsive.
CONCLUSION: Patient-based assessments have become increasingly important in evaluating treatment effectiveness. This study has shown that the FAOS has acceptable construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness in hallux valgus patients and is a useful patient-based tool in assessing these patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app