FAAM OUTCOME MEASURE PDF

The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to be a comprehensive assessment of physical. The FAAM is a self-report measure that assesses physical function of individuals with lower leg, foot, and ankle Patient Reported Outcomes. The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) is a region-specific, non–disease- specific outcome instrument that possesses many of the clinimetric qualities.

Author: Nem Dulkree
Country: Suriname
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Politics
Published (Last): 4 February 2012
Pages: 343
PDF File Size: 1.85 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.45 Mb
ISBN: 496-1-78177-669-4
Downloads: 49347
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mezihn

We did not monitor these athletes over time following an intervention to capture data related to the instrument’s reliability and responsiveness, including the minimal detectable change and the minimal clinically important difference. Data are from participants with chronic ankle instability only 2 athletes scored on both measures. Toggle navigation p Physiopedia. outccome

Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM).

Journal List J Athl Train v. The same investigator J. Each potential participant completed the screening questionnaire and provided a medical history. This finding may be related to how the athletes interpreted the ADL global rating of function. Scores on the sports subscale of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure and on the sports global rating of function had a strong relationship. Conversely, data related to the minimal detectable change and the minimal clinically important difference have been identified for the FAAM; however, these data are specific to the population and timeframes for which they were established.

Similarly, athletes with CAI in ffaam study scored lower on both ADL and sports subscales compared with healthy athletes. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. These data imply that, while these athletes categorically identified their ankles as normalthis clearly was not the case.

Four instruments met meawure criteria of this review: Evidence for content validity, construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness was obtained among subjects who were separated into a group expected to change and a group expected to remain stable. This self-report outcome instrument is available in English, German, French and Persian.

Results All athletes in the healthy group and 4 athletes in the CAI group categorically rated their ankles as normal. In most cases Physiopedia articles are a secondary measuer and so should not be used as references. Discriminative instruments can be used to identify individuals with a particular disorder eg, CAI. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. This phenomenon may be explained in part by the characteristics of the population that we examined.

Open in a separate window. Evidence of content validity is determined by the specific items on the instrument and what they measure. Evaluative instruments are designed to measure an individual’s change in status outcoje time, thereby assessing the effectiveness and outcome of treatment.

Foot and Ankle Ability Measure

Subsequently, the FADI underwent rigorous psychometric analysis, including analysis with item response theory. A single announcement about the study was made at each team’s meeting, including a call for volunteers and inclusion criteria. A methodological framework for assessing health indices.

Before data collection began, all subjects read and signed a consent form. Because only 1 athlete indicated that the ankle was abnormaldata from the nearly normal and abnormal groups were pooled.

Of course, caution must be exercised when drawing conclusions from a comparison of unequal and small sample sizes. The total number of items with a response is multiplied by 4 to get the highest potential score. Information acquired from an evaluative instrument is useful only if mwasure is available to support the interpretation of scores obtained in outxome specific population in mezsure the instrument is intended to be used.

Foot and Ankle Ability Measure. Content validity The specific items on the instrument and what they measure determine the evidence that is based on content. Original Editors – Niels Verbeeck.

Item score totals, which range from 0 to fwam for the ADL subscale and 0 to 32 for the Sports subscale, were transformed to percentage scores.

M, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Additionally, this study was designed to provide validity evidence for interpretation of FAAM scores.

The stability of a score with repeated measurements over time is defined as test-retest reliability. The distribution of participants by sport and group assignment is presented in the Table. Of the remaining athletes in the CAI faaam, 10 categorically rated their ankles as nearly normaland 1 rated the ankle as abnormal. Main Outcome Measure s: However, the clinician must remember that the primary function of the FAAM is to measure changes in status from one point to another rather ouutcome to classify subjects based on status.

Subjective information from self-reported outcome instruments can provide valuable information for clinicians treating individuals with ankle instability. The ADL and Sports subscales are scored mesaure. J Bone Joint Surg Br.

This value is multiplied by to get a percentage. A noteworthy finding was that for the relationships between each FAAM subscale score and global rating of function, correlation values were weaker when only the CAI group was examined. Therefore, we recommend that when administering the FAAM, clinicians should ascertain both measures. A Kendall tau rank correlation coefficient measured the relationship between FAAM scores and subjects’ global rating scores for both the ADL and sports subscales.

Validity evidence was provided by subjects that were expected to change and 79 subjects that were expected to remain stable. If the subject answers all 8 items the highest potential score is 32, if one item is not answered the highest potential score is 28, if two are not answered the highest potential score is 24, etc. When refering to evidence in academic writing, you should always try to reference the primary original source.