Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,145

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Martin, RobRoy L., Irrgang, James J., Burdett, Ray G., Conti, Stephen F., Swearingen, Jessie M. Van·2005·Foot & Ankle International

Abstract

Background: There is no universally accepted instrument that can be used to evaluate changes in self-reported physical function for individuals with leg, ankle, and foot musculoskeletal disorders. The objective of this study was to develop an instrument to meet this need: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Additionally, this study was designed to provide validity evidence for interpretation of FAAM scores. Methods: Final item reduction was completed using item response theory with 1027 subjects. Validity evidence was provided by 164 subjects that were expected to change and 79 subjects that were expected to remain stable. These subjects were given the FAAM and SF-36 to complete on two occasions 4 weeks apart. Results: The final version of the FAAM consists of the 21-item activities of daily living (ADL) and 8-item Sports subscales, which together produced information across the spectrum ability. Validity evidence was provided for test content, internal structure, score stability, and responsiveness. Test retest reliability was 0.89 and 0.87 for the ADL and Sports subscales, respectively. The minimal detectable change based on a 95% confidence interval was ±5.7 and ±-12.3 points for the ADL and Sports subscales, respectively. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA and ROC analysis found both the ADL andSports subscales were responsive to changes in status ( p < 0.05). The minimal clinically important differences were 8 and 9 points for the ADL and Sports subscales, respectively. Guyatt responsive index and ROC analysis found the ADL subscale was more responsive than general measures of physical function while the Sports subscale was not. The ADL and Sport subscales demonstrated strong relationships with the SF-36 physical function subscale ( r = 0.84, 0.78) and physical component summary score ( r = 0.78, 0.80) and weak relationships with the SF-36 mental function subscale ( r = 0.18, 0.11) and mental component summary score ( r = 0.05, −0.02). Conclusions: The FAAM is a reliable, responsive, and valid measure of physical function for individuals with a broad range of musculoskeletal disorders of the lower leg, foot, and ankle.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/107110070502601113

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,145

Metadata

Authors
Martin, R. L., Irrgang, J. J., Burdett, R. G., Conti, S. F., & Swearingen, J. M. V.
Venue
Foot & Ankle International
Published
2005-11
Volume
26
Issue
11
Pages
968-983
ISSN
  • 1071-1007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7876
OpenAlex
W1862349858
Cited by
1,145
References
2
FWCI
4.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evidence of Validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/107110070502601113
The paper
Martin, R. L., Irrgang, J. J., Burdett, R. G., Conti, S. F., & Swearingen, J. M. V. (2005). Evidence of Validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot & Ankle International. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070502601113

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.