More evidence was available for the measurement properties of the FAOS and the FAAM , but overall evidence supporting all measurement properties is not yet sufficient .
Purpose In the foot and ankle literature , a wide range of patient-reported outcome measures ( PROMs ) is used , however , consensus as to which PROMs are preferred is lacking .
Selection of a PROM is among other reasons , often based on measurement properties without considering the method ological quality of the studies that evaluate these measurement properties .
The aim of current study was first to identify the most frequently used foot and ankle-specific PROMs in recent orthopaedic foot and ankle literature , and second to conduct a systematic review to synthesize and critically appraise the measurement properties of these PROMS .
Responsiveness and Validity of the SF-36, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in End Stage Ankle Arthritis
Background : We examined four commonly used scores , the SF-36 , the  Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale ( AOS )  , the  American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ( AOFAS ) Ankle Hindfoot Score  , and the  Foot Function Index ( FFI )  to determine their responsiveness and validity . Methods : Patients with end stage ankle arthritis were recruited into a prospect i ve multicenter cohort study and baseline and one year outcome scores were compared . The St and ardized Response Mean and Effect Size for the AOS , AOFAS , and FFI were calculated and the three region- or disease-specific scores were compared with the SF-36 to determine their criterion validity . Results : All four scores showed acceptable responsiveness , and when using the vali date d SF-36 as the st and ard the three region or disease specific scores all showed similar criterion validity . Conclusion : All four scores are responsive and can be considered for use in this population . The objective component of the AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score may make it harder to perform than the other three scores which have subjective components only , and as yet its objective component has not been shown to demonstrate reliability . We recommend use of a purely subjective score such as the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale or Foot Function Index as the region- or disease-specific score of choice in this population . As the SF-36 shows acceptable responsiveness , using it alone could also be considered . Level of Evidence : II , Prospect i ve Comparative
More evidence was available for the measurement properties of the FAOS and the FAAM , but overall evidence supporting all measurement properties is not yet sufficient .
Purpose In the foot and ankle literature , a wide range of patient-reported outcome measures ( PROMs ) is used , however , consensus as to which PROMs are preferred is lacking .
Selection of a PROM is among other reasons , often based on measurement properties without considering the method ological quality of the studies that evaluate these measurement properties .
The aim of current study was first to identify the most frequently used foot and ankle-specific PROMs in recent orthopaedic foot and ankle literature , and second to conduct a systematic review to synthesize and critically appraise the measurement properties of these PROMS .