194
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Assessment Procedures

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children

ORCID Icon, , , , , & show all
Pages 889-895 | Received 08 Oct 2021, Accepted 12 Feb 2022, Published online: 02 Mar 2022

References

  • Perotti LR, Abousamra O, del Pilar Duque Orozco M, et al. Foot and ankle deformities in children with down syndrome. J Child Orthop. 2018;12(3):218–226.
  • Rao S, Riskowski JL, Hannan MT. Musculoskeletal conditions of the foot and ankle: assessments and treatment options. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2012;26(3):345–368.
  • Bafor A, Chibuzom CN. Foot and ankle abnormalities among a cohort of Nigerian school children: an epidemiological study. Int Orthop. 2020;44(6):1169–1175.
  • López López D, Bouza Prego M, Requeijo Constenla A, et al. The impact of foot arch height on quality of life in 6-12 year olds. Colomb Med. 2014;45(4):168–172.
  • Hunt KJ, Hurwit D. Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. JBJS. 2013;95(16):e118.
  • Ferrari J. Patient perceptions of foot disability in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a comparison of the juvenile arthritis foot disability index and the oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children. J Foot Ankle Res. 2015;8(1):1–8.
  • Kingsley C, Patel S. Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. Bja Education. 2017;17(4):137–144.
  • Bohner-Beke A, Jámbori S, Vass L, et al. A retrospective study on health-related quality of life in congenital clubfoot (with patient-reported outcomes). Paediatr Croat. 2019;63(1):11–16.
  • Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167.
  • André M, Hagelberg S, Stenström CH. The juvenile arthritis foot disability index: development and evaluation of measurement properties. J Rheumatol. 2004;31(12):2488–2493.
  • Morris C, Doll HA, Wainwright A, et al. The oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children: scaling, reliability and validity. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(11):1451–1456.
  • Morris C, Doll H, Davies N, et al. The oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children: responsiveness and longitudinal validity. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(10):1367–1376.
  • Martinkevich P, Møller-Madsen B, Gottliebsen M, et al. Validation of the translated oxford ankle foot questionnaire in 82 Danish children aged between five and 16 years. Bone Joint J. 2015;97(3):420–426.
  • Martinelli N, Romeo G, Bonifacini C, et al. Validation of the Italian version of the oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(1):117–123.
  • Burger E, Selles R, van Nieuwkasteele S, et al. The Dutch version of the oxford ankle and foot questionnaire for children: useful for evaluation of pediatric foot problems in groups. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;25(2):204–210.
  • Cho SH, Chung CY, Park MS, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of a Korean version of the oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–7.
  • Hajebrahimi F, Tarakci D, Arman N, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of Turkish version of oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children with congenital talipes equinovarus. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27(4):439–442.
  • Abdul-Rasoul M, AlOtaibi F, AlMahdi M, et al. 2012. Reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the PedsQL TM 4.0 generic ore scales and PedsQL TM 3.0 diabetes module.
  • 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(3):163–170.
  • Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.
  • Prinsen CA, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–1157.
  • De Vet Henrica CW, Caroline B, Terwee LB, et al. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide (Practical Guides to Biostatistics and Epidemiology). Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 347.
  • Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “core outcome set”–a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):1–10.
  • 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(4):651–657.
  • Negahban H, Mazaheri M, Salavati M, et al. Reliability and validity of the foot and ankle outcome score: a validation study from Iran. Clin Rheumatol. 2010;29(5):479–486.
  • Rasmussen MU, Rydahl‐Hansen S, Amris K, et al. The adaptation of a Danish version of the pain self‐efficacy questionnaire: reliability and construct validity in a population of patients with fibromyalgia in Denmark. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016;30(1):202–210.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.