Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
BACKGROUND: The Foot Function Index (FFI) is a widely used self-reported measure of health-related foot function. Several areas have been identified for potential improvement, and this study responds to such criticisms. The objectives of this study were to: (1) develop a theoretical model of foot functioning, (2) develop a revised FFI (FFI-R), and (3) field-test the FFI-R.
METHODS: A literature review was conducted to develop the theoretical model. The FFI-R items were developed from the original 23 FFI items, and more items were added as a result of the literature review. A focus group discussion with clinicians and pilot interviews with patients resulted in a final draft of the FFI-R. This draft consisted of four subscales and comprised 68 items with a six-point response scale. The FFI-R was field tested on 92 patients in the podiatry clinic of a Veterans Administration Hospital in the Midwest. Psychometric analyses were conducted with modern item response theory (IRT) methods.
RESULTS: A theoretical model of foot functioning was developed. The FFI-R response scale was revised from six to five categories since confusion was found between categories 4 and 5. Rasch analyses indicated a person reliability of 0.96 and item reliability of 0.93. The subscale reliability of pain and stiffness, psychosocial, and disability were all >0.80; the exception was assistive devices (>0.50). Construct validity of FFI-R was supported based on the correlation of 50-ft walk time with an FFI-R total of 0.306, p = 0.018, N = 59. Rasch analyses indicated several items with poor fit statistics and a short form with 34 items was developed.
CONCLUSION: The FFI was revised, and new items were added to compose the FFI-R. The chief theoretical change was adding a psychosocial scale. Both long and short forms had very good psychometric properties.
The Foot Function Index revisited
Linear Mode
