Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validation of the italian version of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI)

Main Article Content

Massimiliano Leigheb
Emanuele Rava
Dario Vaiuso
Elena Manuela Samaila
Francesco Pogliacomi
Michela Bosetti
Federico Alberto Grassi
Maurizio Sabbatini

Keywords

evaluation scale, validation, cultural adaptation, foot, ankle, disability, Quality of Life, questionnaire, FADI, Italian.

Abstract

Background and Aim of the work: Foot-and-Ankle-Disability-Index (FADI) is one of the most
widely used evaluation questionnaires for this anatomical district, but an italian validated version lacks and is
necessary to properly evaluate italian people. In fact a correct interpretation of the items by patients is essential
to obtain a precise subjective response, making the questionnaire valid to evaluate patients’ satisfaction and
wellness. Our purpose was to translate and culturally adapt into Italian the FADI questionnaire, and to check
its reproducibility and validity. Materials and Methods: The original english version of FADI questionnaire
was translated into Italian and checked for medical part coherence. It was submitted to 10 italian randomized
patients to verify a correct cultural adaptation, and then to other 50 randomized patients operated at their
ankle or hallux to assess intra- and inter-observer reproducibility by the Pearson’s-Correlation-Coefficient
(PCC) and the Intra-Class-Correlation (ICC) coefficient. Moreover, Short-Form-36 (SF36) questionnaire
for Quality-of-Life and Visual-Analogue-Scale (VAS) for pain were also administered to the same 60 people
and compared to italian-FADI to perform validation analysis by PCC and ICC coefficient. Results: Cultural
adaptation of the translated version of the scale resulted good in terms of understandability by patients. An
optimal correlation of the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility was obtained. The correlation obtained
between FADI and SF-36 as well as between FADI and VAS indicates success in the validation process.
Conclusions: Validation of the FADI italian version has been performed successfully, its use can be considered
appropriate and is indicated in italian clinical practice. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 541 | PDF Downloads 121

References

1) Eechaute C, Vaes P, Van Aerschot L, Asman S and Duquet W. The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007; 8: 6.
2) Parker J, Nester CJ, Long AF, Barrie J. The problem with measuring patient perceptions of outcome with existing outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 2003; 24: 56-60.
3) Hale SH and Hertel J. Reliability and sensitivity of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train 2005; 40: 35-40.
4) Pinsker E, Daniels TR, Inrig T, Warmington K, Beaton DE. The ability of outcome questionnaires to capture patient concerns following ankle reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 2013; 34: 65-74.
5) Martin RL, Burdett RG, Irrgang JJ. Development of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1999; 29: A32–A33.
6) Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186–3191.
7) Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1417-1432.
8) Guillemin F. Cross cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol 1995; 24: 61-63.
9) Leigheb M, Janicka P, Andorno S, Marcuzzi A, Magnani C, Grassi F. Italian translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the “American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society’s (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scale”. Acta Biomed 2016; 87: 38-45.
10) Leigheb M, Vaiuso D, Rava E, et al. Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Reliability, and Validation of the Italian Version of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society - MetaTarsoPhalangeal-InterPhalangeal Scale (AOFAS-MTP-IP) for the hallux Acta Biomed 2019; 90(12S): 118-126.
11) Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: 1-74.
12) Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1995.
13) Der Heyde R. Chapter 6 - Assessment of Functional Outcomes. In: Fundamentals of Hand Therapy - Clinical Reasoning and Treatment Guidelines for Common Diagnoses of the Upper Extremity. Eds Elsevier 2007: 98-113.
14) Ibrahim T, Beiri A, Azzabi M, Best AJ, Taylor GJ, Menon DK. Reliability and validity of the subjective component of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Clinical Rating Scales. J Foot Ankle Surg 2007; 46: 65-74.
15) Leigheb M, Sabbatini M, Baldrighi M, et al. Prospective Analysis of Pain and Pain Management in an Emergency Department. Acta Biomed 2017; 88(4S): 19-30.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >>