Questionnaires and scales for assessment of ankle function: a systematic review of instruments translated and validated for Brazilian Portuguese

References

• Snedeker JG, Wirth SH, Espinosa N. Biomechanics of the normal and arthritic ankle joint. Foot Ankle Clin. 2012;17:517–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanen L, Docherty CL, Van Der Pol B, et al. Prevalence of chronic ankle instability in high school and division I athletes. Foot Ankle Spec. 2014;7:37–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Delahunt E, Bleakley CM, Bossard DS, et al. Clinical assessment of acute lateral ankle sprain injuries (ROAST): 2019 consensus statement and recommendations of the International Ankle Consortium. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yung P, Fong DT, Hong Y, et al. A systematic review on ankle injury and ankle sprain in sports a systematic review on ankle injury and ankle sprain in sports. Sports Med. 2007;37:73–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyce SH, Quigley MA. Review of sports injuries presenting to an accident and emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2004;21:704–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne GJ, Barnett PL. Common sports-related musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the emergency department. J Paediatr Child Health. 2016;52:231–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doherty C, Delahunt E, Caulfield B, et al. The incidence and prevalence of ankle sprain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective epidemiological studies. Sports Med. 2014;44:123–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunner R, Friesenbichler B, Casartelli NC, et al. Effectiveness of multicomponent lower extremity injury prevention programmes in team-sport athletes: an umbrella review. Br J Sports Med. 2018;53:282–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn L, Hertel J. Rehabilitation of ankle and foot injuries in athletes. Clin Sports Med. 2010;29:157–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams GN, Molloy JM, DeBerardino TM, et al. Evaluation of the sports ankle rating system in young, athletic individuals with acute lateral ankle sprains. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24:274–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrick JG. Preparticipation orthopedic screening evaluation. Clin J Sport Med. 2004;14:123–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seto CK. The preparticipation physical examination: an update. Clin Sports Med. 2011;30:491–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabino GS, Coelho CM, Sampaio RF. Utilização da Classificação Internacional de Funcionalidade, Incapacidade e Saúde na avaliação fisioterapêutica de indivíduos com problemas musculoesqueléticos nos membros inferiores e região lombar. Acta Fisiátrica. 2008;15:24–30.
   Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–3191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:72–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreira T, Sabino G, Resende M. Instrumentos clínicos de avaliação funcional do tornozelo: revisão sistemática. Fisioter Pesqui. 2010;17:88–93.
   Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist manual. Version (1.0). VU Univ Med. 2012;56.
   Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, et al. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1171–1179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesquita GN, de Oliveira MNM, de Matoso AER, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of the Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) Questionnaire. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48:567–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigues RC, Masiero D, Mizusaki JM, et al. Tradução, adaptação cultural e validação do “American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale”. Acta Ortop Bras. 2008;16:107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Stéfani KC, Pereira Filho MV, Rizzi Oliveira P, et al. Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index-Revised (FFI-R). Acta Ortop Bras. 2017;25:188–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez BR, Lopes Sauers AD, Ferreira CL, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of the Brazilian version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) questionnaire. Phys Ther Sport. 2018;29:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreira TS, Magalhães Lde C, Silva RD, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validity of the Brazilian version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:2479–2490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez BR, Staboli IM, Kamonseki DH, et al. Validity and reliability of the Foot Function Index (FFI) questionnaire Brazilian-Portuguese version. Springerplus. 2016;5:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Imoto AM, Peccin MS, Rodrigues R, et al. Tradução E Validação Do Questionário Faos – Foot and Ankle Outcome Score. Acta Ortop Bras. 2009;17:232–235.
   Google Scholar
• Noronha M, de Refshauge KM, Kilbreath SL, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT). Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:1959–1965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunha RA, da Hazime FA, da Silva Martins MC, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and clinimetric testing of instruments used to assess patients with ankle sprain in the Brazilian population. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016;46:1042–1050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi LC, Staboli IM, Kamonseki DH, et al. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of FFI to Brazilian Portuguese version: FFI – Brazil Rev Bras Reumatol. 2015;55:398–405.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1417–1432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:441–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:309–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning : an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80:99–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Vet HCW, de Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1033–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Kottner J. Recommendations for reporting the results of studies of instrument and scale development and testing. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70:1970–1979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza ACd, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello EdB, et al. Propriedades psicométricas na avaliação de instrumentos: avaliação da confiabilidade e da validade. Epidemiol Serv Saúde. 2017;26:649–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65:2276–2284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JEJ, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: which one is the best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:2459–2463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17:163–170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lim CR, Harris K, Dawson J, et al. Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: an analysis of the NHS PROMs data set. BMJ Open. 2015;5:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:459–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown A, Croudace T. Scoring and estimating score precision using multidimensional IRT. In Reise SP, Revicki DA, editors. Handbook of item response theory modeling: applications to typical performance assessment (a volume in the Multivariate Applications Series). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Van Der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. Item response theory: brief history, common models, and extensions. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer; 1997. p. 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Watson PF, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 2010;73:1167–1179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vetter TR, Schober P. Agreement analysis: what he said, she said versus you said. Anesth Analg. 2018;126:2123–2128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denegar CR, Ball DW. Assessing reliability and precision of measurement: an introduction to intraclass correlation and standard error of measurement intraclass correlation and standard error of measurement. J Sport Rehabil. 1993;2:35–42.
   Google Scholar