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 .
Psychometric Comparison of the PROMIS Physical Function CAT With the FAAM and FFI for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes
Background : Selecting optimal patient-reported outcome ( PRO ) instruments is critical to improving the quality of health care . The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability , responsiveness , and efficiency of three PRO measures : the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure – Activity of Daily Living subscale ( FAAM_ADL ) , the Foot Function Index 5-point verbal rating scale ( FFI-5pt ) , and the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test ( PF CAT ) . Methods : Data were aggregated from 10 clinical sites in the AOFAS ’s National Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Research ( OFAR ) Network from 311 patients who underwent elective surgery for a disorder of the foot or ankle . Patients were administered the FAAM_ADL , FFI-5pt , and PF CAT at their preoperative visit and at 6 months after surgery . Reliabilities were evaluated using a Rasch model . Responsiveness was calculated using paired sample s t test and efficiency was recorded as number of seconds to complete the instrument . Results : Similar reliabilities were found for the three instruments . Item reliabilities for FAAM_ADL , FFI-5pt , and PF CAT were all .99 . Pearson reliabilities for FAAM_ADL , FFI-5pt , and PF CAT were .95 , .93 , and .96 , respectively . On average , patients completed the FAAM_ADL in 179 seconds , the FFI-5pt in 194 seconds , and the PF CAT in 44 seconds , ( P < .001 ) . The PF CAT and FAAM_ADL showed significant improvement ( P = .01 and P = .001 , respectively ) in patients ’ physical function after treatment ; the FFI-5pt did not show improvement . Conclusions : Overall , the PF CAT performed best in terms of reliability , responsiveness , and efficiency in this broad sample of foot and ankle patients . It can be a potential replacement for the conventional PRO measures , but further validation is needed in conjunction with the PROMIS Pain instruments . Level of Evidence : Level I , prospect i ve comparative outcome study
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 .