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 .
Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients.
The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system ( PROMIS ) physical function item bank v1 ( PPFIB ) contains 124 item response theory ( IRT ) calibrated items ( Rose et al. 2008 . J Clin Epidemiol 61:17–33).We report the psychometric properties of these items within an outpatient , orthopaedic patient population . In particular , we investigated whether a single unidimensional IRT scale can adequately define physical function of patients presenting with primarily upper or lower extremity orthopaedic complaints . We conducted a prospect i ve study at an orthopaedic outpatient clinic to collect data from 865 adult patients with all 124 PROMIS physical function items and seven demographic items . Items were evaluated by a Rasch model . Total variance ( 60.6 % ) across the 124 items was explained by a single Rasch dimension . The variance explained by the second dimension was 7.7 % , reflecting differential item functioning in the upper and lower extremity patients . The upper extremity physical function items had a pronounced ceiling effect . A single physical function dimension accounts for most of the item variance in the PPFIB , suggesting that the items are measuring predominantly one single construct . Separate subscales for lower versus upper extremities , especially with additional items at the upper trait level of the upper extremity subscale , may further enhance evaluation of physical function in orthopaedic patients
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 .