Evidence of validity for the Japanese version of the foot and ankle ability measure

Context: The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) is a valid, reliable, and self-reported outcome instrument for the foot and ankle region. Objective: To provide evidence for translation, cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Japanese version of the FAAM (FAAM-J). Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Collegiate athletic training/sports medicine clinical setting. Patients or Other Participants: Eighty-three collegiate athletes. Main Outcome Measure(s): All participants completed the Activities of Daily Living and Sports subscales of the FAAM-J and the Physical Functioning and Mental Health subscales of the Japanese version of the Short Form-36v2 (SF-36). Also, 19 participants (23%) whose conditions were expected to be stable completed another FAAM-J 2 to 6 days later for test-retest reliability. We analyzed the scores of those subscales for convergent and divergent validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. Results: The Activities of Daily Living and Sports subscales of the FAAM-J had correlation coefficients of 0.86 and 0.75, respectively, with the Physical Functioning section of the SF-36 for convergent validity. For divergent validity, the correlation coefficients with Mental Health of the SF-36 were 0.29 and 0.27 for each subscale, respectively. Cronbach α for internal consistency was 0.99 for the Activities of Daily Living and 0.98 for the Sports subscale. A 95% confidence interval with a single measure was ±8.1 and ±14.0 points for each subscale. The test-retest reliability measures revealed intraclass correlation coefficient values of 0.87 for the Activities of Daily Living and 0.91 for the Sports subscales with minimal detectable changes of ±6.8 and ±13.7 for the respective subscales. Conclusions: The FAAM was successfully translated for a Japanese version, and the FAAM-J was adapted cross-culturally. Thus, the FAAM-J can be used as a self-reported outcome measure for Japanese-speaking individuals; however, the scores must be interpreted with caution, especially when applied to different populations and other types of injury than those included in this study.