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 .
The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability.
A Foot Function Index ( FFI ) was developed to measure the impact of foot pathology on function in terms of pain , disability and activity restriction . The FFI is a self-administered index consisting of 23 items divided into 3 sub-scales . Both total and sub-scale scores are produced . The FFI was examined for test-retest reliability , internal consistency , and construct and criterion validity . A total of 87 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were used in the study .  Test-retest reliability of the FFI total and sub-scale scores ranged from 0.87 to 0.69 . Internal consistency ranged from 0.96 to 0.73 . With the exception of two items , factor analysis supported the construct validity of the total index and the sub-scales . Strong correlation between the FFI total and sub-scale scores and clinical measures of foot pathology supported the criterion validity of the index . The FFI should prove useful for both clinical and research purpose
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 .