A considerable variety of outcome measurement tools are used in the foot and ankle clinical literature , with a small proportion used consistently .
The AOFAS scales continue to be used at a high rate relative to other scales that have been vali date d. Data from the present study underscore the need for a paradigm shift toward the use of consistent , valid , and reliable outcome measures for studies of foot and ankle procedures and disorders .
It is not clear which existing vali date d outcome instruments will emerge as widely used and clinical ly meaningful .
BACKGROUND In the orthopaedic literature , there is a wide range of clinical outcome measurement tools that have been used in evaluating foot and ankle procedures , disorders , and outcomes , with no broadly accepted consensus as to which tools are preferred .
The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and distribution of the various outcome instruments used in the foot and ankle literature , and to identify trends for use of these instruments over time .
Clinical interpretation of computerized adaptive test outcome measures in patients with foot/ankle impairments.
STUDY DESIGN Prospect i ve cohort study of 10 287 patients with foot/ankle impairments receiving outpatient physical therapy .  OBJECTIVES To describe meaningful interpretations of functional status ( FS ) outcomes measures , estimated using a body-part-specific computerized adaptive test ( CAT ) . BACKGROUND Increased use of CATs to generate outcome measures in rehabilitation has stimulated questions concerning score interpretation . Identifying meaningful intra-individual change and reporting clinical interpretation of those generated outcomes are essential to advance the quality of rehabilitation practice . METHODS We performed 4 approaches to clinical ly interpret outcomes data . First , we used the st and ard error of the estimate to construct a 90 % confidence interval for each CAT estimated score . Second , we presented the percentile rank of FS scores . Third , we used 2 threshold approaches to define individual-patient-level change : statistically reliable change and clinical ly important change . Last , we illustrated a functional staging method . RESULTS Precision of a single score was estimated by an FS score of + /-4 . Based on score distribution , percentile ranks at 25th , 50th , and 75th percentiles corresponded to intake FS scores of 38 , 47 , and 57 , and discharge FS scores of 52 , 64 , and 77 , respectively . Minimal detectable change supported 7 or more FS change units out of 100 represented statistically reliable change , and ROC analyses supported 8 or more FS change units represented minimal clinical ly important improvement . Using a functional staging system , we established 5 hierarchical functional status levels . CONCLUSION CAT-generated outcome measures can be interpreted to improve clinical interpretation and to assist clinicians in using patient-reported outcomes during therapy practice
A considerable variety of outcome measurement tools are used in the foot and ankle clinical literature , with a small proportion used consistently .
The AOFAS scales continue to be used at a high rate relative to other scales that have been vali date d. Data from the present study underscore the need for a paradigm shift toward the use of consistent , valid , and reliable outcome measures for studies of foot and ankle procedures and disorders .
It is not clear which existing vali date d outcome instruments will emerge as widely used and clinical ly meaningful .
BACKGROUND In the orthopaedic literature , there is a wide range of clinical outcome measurement tools that have been used in evaluating foot and ankle procedures , disorders , and outcomes , with no broadly accepted consensus as to which tools are preferred .
The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and distribution of the various outcome instruments used in the foot and ankle literature , and to identify trends for use of these instruments over time .