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 .
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
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 .