Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 54 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 408 - 413 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185 İndeks Tarihi: 25-11-2020

Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain

Öz:
Objective: The aim of this study was to translate the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) into Turkish and to determine the validity and reliability of the translated version in patients with foot or ankle pain.Methods: A total of 98 patients (65 females, 33 males, mean age=39 years, age range 18-65 years) who presented with footor ankle pain for at least one week were included in the study. SEFAS was translated into Turkish (SEFAS-T) and thenback-translated into English by two bilingual translators to ensure the accuracy of translation. To determine the validity ofthe translated version, SEFAS-T, The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) were administered at the first assessment on the same day. SEFAS-T was repeated five days later (Spearman’s rho). Intra-class correlationcoefficients (ICCs) were used for assessment of the test re-test reliability, while the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used toassess the internal consistency of the questionnaireResults: SEFAS-T showed good test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.887). Item 4 showed poor item–total correlation and inter-itemcorrelations. When item 4 was excluded, the Cronbach’s alpha value was found as 0.906. SEFAS-T total scores showed correlation with all the FAOS sub-scores (p<0.001) and all the SF-36 components (p≤0.001) except mental health (rho: 0.149,p: 0.143). The highest correlation was found between SEFAS-T Total Score and the Sports and Recreations subscale of FAOS(rho: 0.796, p<0.001).Conclusion: SEFAS-T seems to be valid and reliable as a measure for foot or ankle pain in Turkish patients.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
  • 1. Molund M, Husebye EE, Hellesnes J, Nilsen F, Hvaal K. Proximal medial gastrocnemius recession and stretching versus stretching as treatment of chronic plantar heel pain. Foot Ankle Int 2018; 39: 1423-31. [Crossref]
  • 2. Badlissi F, Dunn JE, Link CL, Keysor JJ, McKinlay JB, Felson DT. Foot musculoskeletal disorders, pain, and foot‐related functional limitation in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53: 1029-33. [Crossref]
  • 3. Hill CL, Gill TK, Menz HB, Taylor AW. Prevalence and correlates of foot pain in a population-based study: The North West Adelaide health study. J Foot Ankle Res 2008; 1: doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-1-2. [Crossref]
  • 4. Menz HB, Lord SR. Foot pain impairs balance and functional ability in community-dwelling older people. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2001; 91: 222-9. [Crossref]
  • 5. Garrow AP, Silman AJ, Macfarlane GJ. The Cheshire Foot Pain and Disability Survey: A population survey assessing prevalence and associations. Pain 2004; 110: 378-84. [Crossref]
  • 6. Awale A, Hagedorn TJ, Dufour AB, Menz HB, Casey VA, Hannan MT. Foot function, foot pain, and falls in older adults: The Framingham foot study. Gerontology 2017; 63: 318-24. [Crossref]
  • 7. Chatterton BD, Muller S, Roddy E. Epidemiology of posterior heel pain in the general population: Cross‐sectional findings from the clinical assessment study of the foot. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2015; 67: 996-1003. [Crossref]
  • 8. Jensen M. The pain stethoscope: A clinician’s guide to measuring pain: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. [Crossref]
  • 9. Jensen MP, Karoly P. Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. 1992.
  • 10. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186-91. [Crossref]
  • 11. Hosman AH, Mason RB, Hobbs T, Rothwell AG. A New Zealand national joint registry review of 202 total ankle replacements followed for up to 6 years. Acta Orthop 2007; 78: 584-91. [Crossref]
  • 12. Cöster M, Karlsson MK, Nilsson JA, Carlsson A. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). Acta Orthop 2012; 83: 197-203. [Crossref]
  • 13. Coster MC, Bremander A, Rosengren BE, Magnusson H, Carlsson A, Karlsson MK. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) in forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders. Acta Orthop 2014; 85: 187-94. [Crossref]
  • 14. Arbab D, Kuhlmann K, Schnurr C, Bouillon B, Lüring C, Konig D. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18: 409. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1772-1. [Crossref]
  • 15. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, Ölmez N, Memiş A. The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of short form-36 (KF-36). J Med Treat 1999; 12: 102-6.
  • 16. Karatepe AG, Günaydın R, Kaya T, Karlıbaş U, Özbek G. Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Rheumatol Int 2009; 30: 169-73. [Crossref]
  • 17. Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 2001; 22: 788-94. [Crossref]
  • 18. Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: the bare essentials: PMPH-USA; 2008.
  • 19. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin JB. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014; 12: 176. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014- 0176-2. [Crossref]
  • 20. Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW. What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? Injury 2011; 42: 236-40. [Crossref]
  • 21. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42. [Crossref]
APA Yazici G, Volkan Yazıcı M, Bayraktar D, Varol F, GUCLU-GUNDUZ A, bek n (2020). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. , 408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
Chicago Yazici Gokhan,Volkan Yazıcı Melek,Bayraktar Deniz,Varol Fatmagül,GUCLU-GUNDUZ ARZU,bek nilgün Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. (2020): 408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
MLA Yazici Gokhan,Volkan Yazıcı Melek,Bayraktar Deniz,Varol Fatmagül,GUCLU-GUNDUZ ARZU,bek nilgün Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. , 2020, ss.408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
AMA Yazici G,Volkan Yazıcı M,Bayraktar D,Varol F,GUCLU-GUNDUZ A,bek n Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. . 2020; 408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
Vancouver Yazici G,Volkan Yazıcı M,Bayraktar D,Varol F,GUCLU-GUNDUZ A,bek n Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. . 2020; 408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
IEEE Yazici G,Volkan Yazıcı M,Bayraktar D,Varol F,GUCLU-GUNDUZ A,bek n "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain." , ss.408 - 413, 2020. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
ISNAD Yazici, Gokhan vd. "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain". (2020), 408-413. https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
APA Yazici G, Volkan Yazıcı M, Bayraktar D, Varol F, GUCLU-GUNDUZ A, bek n (2020). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 54(4), 408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
Chicago Yazici Gokhan,Volkan Yazıcı Melek,Bayraktar Deniz,Varol Fatmagül,GUCLU-GUNDUZ ARZU,bek nilgün Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 54, no.4 (2020): 408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
MLA Yazici Gokhan,Volkan Yazıcı Melek,Bayraktar Deniz,Varol Fatmagül,GUCLU-GUNDUZ ARZU,bek nilgün Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, vol.54, no.4, 2020, ss.408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
AMA Yazici G,Volkan Yazıcı M,Bayraktar D,Varol F,GUCLU-GUNDUZ A,bek n Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2020; 54(4): 408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
Vancouver Yazici G,Volkan Yazıcı M,Bayraktar D,Varol F,GUCLU-GUNDUZ A,bek n Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2020; 54(4): 408 - 413. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
IEEE Yazici G,Volkan Yazıcı M,Bayraktar D,Varol F,GUCLU-GUNDUZ A,bek n "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain." Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 54, ss.408 - 413, 2020. 10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185
ISNAD Yazici, Gokhan vd. "Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score in patients with foot or ankle pain". Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 54/4 (2020), 408-413. https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2020.19185