Table 5.
Studies of foot function measures
| Instrument | 1st Author | Objective | Population (N, Sex, Age, Dx, location) | Psychometric analysis | Items/domains/subscales/item sources | Response type | Summary evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foot Function Index, 1991 |
Budiman-Mak, E
[7] |
Instrument Development |
N: 87 (78 male) |
Classical Test Theory |
23 items |
Visual Analog Scale |
Good clinimetrics, applicable to various age groups and varieties of foot and ankle pathologies. |
| Mean age: 61 |
3 domains |
|
Conclusion: Positive |
||||
| (Range: 24–79) |
Pain, difficulty and activity limitation subscales clinician |
|
|
||||
| Dx: RA foot |
|
|
|
||||
| Location: USA |
|
|
|
||||
| Foot Function Index Pain (left/right), 1996 |
Saag, KG
[23] |
Foot Function Index pain scale; Compare right/left foot |
N: 63 (13 male) |
Classical Test Theory |
9 items |
Visual Analog Scale |
This measure of right vs. left side of the foot showed good clinimetric properties |
| Mean age: 57.5 (SD=11.6) |
|
FFI pain subscale |
|
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||
| Dx: RA |
|
clinician |
|
|
|||
| Location: USA |
|
|
|
|
|||
| Foot Function Index/Foot Health Status Questionnaires (FHSQ), 1998 |
Bennet PJ
[9] |
Development of FHSQ, a new measure |
N: 111 (25 male) |
Classical Test Theory |
13 items |
Likert |
FHSQ has good clinimetrics. |
| Mean age: 54 (SD=20) |
|
4 domains clinician |
|
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||
| Dx: Osteoarthritis hallux valgus |
|
|
|
|
|||
| Location: Australia |
|
|
|
|
|||
| Foot Function Index/Ankle Osteoartitis Score (AOS), 1998 |
Domsic, RT
[24] |
AOS consisted of Foot Function Index pain and disability scales |
N: 36 (12 male) |
Classical Test Theory |
18 items |
Visual Analog Scale |
AOS had good clinimetrics. |
| Mean age: 52.7 (Range: 16–79) |
2 Domains clinician |
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||||
| Dx: Ankle osteo-arthritis |
|
|
|||||
| Location: USA |
|
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index/Foot Function Index- 5pts in Dutch, 2002 |
Kuyvenhoven, MM
[3] |
Foot Function Index in Dutch |
N: 206 (78 male) |
Classical Test Theory |
15 items |
5-point Likert |
Adaptation of Foot Function Index to 5 point Likert, used as a generic measure in foot and ankle problems. |
| Mean age: 61 (SD=10) |
2 domains: pain & disability clinician |
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||||
| Dx: OA with limited mobility and pain |
|
|
|||||
| Location: Netherlands |
|
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index/Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ), 2002 |
Landorf, KB
[10] |
Validation of FHSQ to Foot Function Index |
N: 17 (4 male) |
Non-parametric statistics |
FHSQ |
5-point Likert |
FHSQ has less items than FFI and was printed in larger font for ease of use. |
| Mean age: 44.6 (SD=10.5) (Range 24–72) |
13 items |
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||||
| Dx: Painful plantar fasciitis |
4 domains; clinician |
|
|||||
| Location: Australia |
|
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index/Foot Impact Scale (FIS), 2005 |
Helliwell, P
[29] |
Validation with Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), FFI, and Manchester Foot Disability Questionnaires (MFDQ) |
N: 148 (34 male) |
Item Response Theory |
FIS |
Visual Analog Scale |
FIS items were derived from RA patients (consisted of impairment/shoes and activities/participation subscales), with good clinimetric properties. |
| Mean age: 61.7 (Range 28–89) |
51 items |
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||||
| Dx: RA Foot Pain |
2 domains |
|
|||||
| Location: UK |
Patient |
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index, 2005 |
Agel, J
[25] |
Reliability and validity tests in specific population with moderate to high physical function |
N: 54 (22 male, 6 unknown) |
Correlation statistics |
Foot Function Index |
Likert Scale |
Use of Foot Function Index in non-systemic foot and ankle problems requires removal of 2 items each from pain and disability, judged not applicable for this condition. |
| Mean age: 52.8 (SD=12.3) (Range 19–74) |
23 items |
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||||
| Dx: Non-traumatic foot/ankle complaints |
3 domains |
|
|||||
| Location: USA |
|
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index, 2005 |
Shrader, JA
[28] |
Reliability and validity measures of navicular joint deformity vs. clinical findings |
N: 20 (0 male) |
|
Foot Function Index |
Visual Analog Scale |
Foot Function Index was used to measure the foot health status associated with joint deformities. |
| Mean age: 55.4 (SD=11.4 years); Dx: RA 12.7 years (SD=10.4) |
Index 23 items |
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||||
| Dx: Navicular joint dropped and foot pain |
3 domains |
|
|||||
| Location: USA |
|
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index-R with Foot Function Index, 2006 |
Budiman-Mak, E
[11] |
Instrument Development |
N: 97 (90 male) |
Item Response Theory |
Foot Function Index |
Likert scale (replaced Visual Analog Scale) |
Foot Function Index-R had 3 domains, plus 4th psychosocial domain added to assess quality of life. |
| Mean age: 69 (range: 38–88) |
68 items (long) |
Conclusion: Positive |
|||||
| Dx: Chronic foot and ankle complain |
34 items (short) |
|
|||||
| Location: USA |
Clinicians and patients |
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index, 2006 |
Bal, A
[26] |
Comparing Foot Function Index with Health Assessment Questionnaires (HAQ) & SFC |
N: 78 (11 male) |
Correlation statistics |
Foot Function Index |
Visual Analog Scale |
Strong correlations of HAQ and Foot Function Index scores, HR and CV also reflected in Foot Function Index scores and were highly correlated with Rand 36 items Short Form Health Survey (SF36). |
| Mean age: 50.65 (SD=10.7); RA duration 13.96 (SD=8.09) |
23 items |
Conclusion: Positive |
|||||
| Location: Turkey |
3 Domains |
|
|||||
| |
|
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index & SF36, 2006 |
SooHoo, N
[27] |
Validity test in foot health and general physical health |
N:69 (25 male) |
Correlation statistics |
Foot Function Index |
Visual Analog Scale |
The 3 domains of Foot Function Index demonstrated moderate-high correlation with SF36, thus it was reasonable to use Foot Function Index to monitor outcomes. |
| Mean Age: 46 (Range 16–82) |
23 items |
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||||
| Dx: Foot & Ankle disorder |
3 domains |
|
|||||
| Location: USA |
|
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index & American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) hallux module, 2006 |
Baumhauer, JF
[32] |
Reliability and validity of test, compared with Foot Function Index |
N:11 (1 male) |
Correlation statistics |
AOFAS hallux & lesser toes module |
Numeric rating scale |
Only AOFAS hallux for pain correlated with Foot Function Index pain scale. |
| Mean age: 54 (Range: 40–72) |
Conclusion: Positive. |
||||||
| Dx: RA without foot complaints |
|
||||||
| Location: USA |
|
||||||
| Foot Function Index, 2006 |
Van der Leeden, M
[30] |
Measure forefoot damage |
N:62 (15 male) |
Correlation Statistics |
Validation with Western Ontario Mac Masters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Disease Activity in 44 RA joints (DAS-44) |
Numeric rating scale |
Foot Function Index function subscale correlated with WOMAC and DAS-44. Foot Function Index pain score correlated with forefoot pain. Foot Function Index function score correlated with hind foot problem. |
| Mean age: 55.7 (SD=13.11) |
Conclusion: Positive. |
||||||
| Dx: RA forefoot complaints, duration of 96 months |
|
||||||
| Location: Netherlands |
|
||||||
| Foot Function Index, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) clinical rating component, 2007 |
Ibrahim, T
[33] |
Testing the criterion validity of clinical rating components of AOFAS with Foot Function Index |
N:45 (11 male) |
Correlation Statistics |
Validity of AOFAS scale |
Numeric rating scale |
The scores of AOFAS clinical ratings and Foot Function Index were moderately correlated based on 41% response rate. |
| Mean age: 55 years (range=15-81) |
Conclusion: Positive. |
||||||
| Dx: Hallux deformities |
|
||||||
| Location: UK |
|
||||||
| Foot Function Index,/Foot Function Index Chinese (Taiwan), 2008 |
WU, SH
[36] |
Reliability and validity measure of PCS of SF-26, Taiwan version; |
N:50 (planta fasciitis); mean age 46.9 (SD=10.6) |
Cross-cultural adaptation |
Foot Function Index |
Visual Analog Scale |
Foot Function Index Taiwan Chinese consisted of 21 items. Could measure non-traumatic and traumatic foot and ankle problems. The floor score was 10%, in sample with fractures. |
| N:29 (ankle/foot fracture); mean age 37.2 (SD=14.8) 25 male |
21 items |
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||||
| Location: Taiwan |
3 domains |
|
|||||
| The order of items was changed. | |||||||
| |
Clinician and patient |
|
|||||
| Foot Function Index, Foot Function Index-D, 2008 |
Naal, FD
[34] |
Foot Function Index-D, |
N:53 (14 male) |
Cross-cultural adaptation |
Foot Function Index-D |
Numeric rating scale |
Foot Function Index underwent German translation. Foot Function Index-D added 3 new items and revised 8 items of the Foot Function Index and had demonstrated good clinimetrics. |
| Age: 57.2 (SD=13.7) Range (18=77) |
Index-D 18 items (pain & disability subscales) |
Conclusion: Positive. |
|||||
| Dx: Foot complaints |
2 domains |
|
|||||
| Location: Germany | Clinician and patient |