A Survey of Self-reported Outcome Instruments for the Foot and Ankle

James J. Irrgang, RobRoy L. Martin

DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2403

The information acquired from self-reported outcome instruments is useful only if there is evidence to support the interpretation of obtained scores. To properly interpret scores, there should be evidence for content validity, construct validity, reliability, and responsive­ness. Evidence regarding score interpretation must also contain a description of the applica­ble test conditions, including information about the characteristics of subjects, timing of data collection, and construct of change. The objec­tive of this review was to identify self-reported outcome instruments that have evidence to support their usefulness for assessing the ef­fect of treatment directed at individuals with foot and ankle-related pathologic conditions in an orthopaedic physical therapy setting. In ad­dition, we provide specific information that will allow clinicians and researchers to select an appropriate instrument and properly interpret the obtained scores. Fourteen self-reported outcome instruments that met the objective of this review were identified. Five instruments, the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, Foot Func­tion Index, Foot Health Status Questionnaire, Lower Extremity Function Scale, and Sports Ankle Rating System quality of life measure, satisfied all 4 categories of evidence (content validity, construct validity, reliability, and re­sponsiveness) outlined herein. 

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(2):72-84. doi:10.2519/jospt.2007.2403

KEY WORDS: ankle, foot, outcome instru­ments, reliability, responsiveness, validity

This review identifies self-reported outcome instruments that have evidence to support their usefulness for assessing the ef­fect of treatment of individuals with foot and ankle-related pathologic conditions in an orthopaedic physical therapy setting.

View Full Article