Physicians as well as researchers have designed a variety of tools to enable them to measure the affect of almost all health conditions and make use of that to help evaluate the effect of that health on the individual. This is applied to clinical encounters to measure progress in treatment and applied to research to measure improvements with therapies that are getting investigated.
The Foot Function Index (FFI) was designed back in 1991 as a application for doctors and researchers to determine the impact of foot issues on function when it comes to pain, impairment as well as activity restriction of people with the issue. It is a questionnaire like tool that was comprised of twenty three questions. This insturment wad initially created in the context with the conditions of the feet that occur in rheumatoid arthritis, but it is now popular in medical and scientific research settings for a wide range of foot problems. The FFI questionnaire has twenty three items that are split up into 3 subcategories on the basis of patient attitudes in the 3 domains of discomfort, disability and also activity restriction. The individual completes the survey to score each and every question on a range from 0 (pain free or no difficulty) to ten (worst pain possible or so challenging it requires help), that best details their foot over the previous week. The complete score gives the FFI and there is additionally a score for each with the three sub-scales.
Of concern with all of these kinds of tools which evaluate outcomes and associated issues is always that is the tool dependable and is it valid? Several studies for the test-retest repeatability associated with the Foot Function Index complete as well as sub-scale ratings have been published with the statistics being from 0.87 to 0.69 that is regarded as adequate. It's been tested primarily on people with rheumatoid arthritis and the conclusion of this research is that it's a dependable tool to work with in these patients. Reliability of any questionnaire type tool is considered essential and it is a method of testing if the tool is repeatable, for the reason that it provides as near as you possibly can to the exact same result if it's used repeatably. Just as essential as repeatability would be the notion that the Foot Function Index is valid. Validity refers to if the tool is actually measuring just exactly what it really claims that it's determining. One study which checked out this for the FFI revealed a substantial relationship involving the FFI total and subscale rankings along with other clinical measures of foot discomforts that confirms that there is good criterion validity with the FFI. Another important feature of questionnaires like this is they would be the responsive. This implies that when the tool is needed again after a period of time and there has been a change in the signs and symptoms, is the application delicate enough and responsive enough to pick up that change. The Foot Function Index has become ranked confidently for responsiveness.
Since the original development a changed version of the FFI has been produced to change the characteristics with the application to make it a lot more in line with WHO guidelines. It's been translated this FFI into a number of different languages in which it's yet again been researched should it be reliable and valid in these different languages. All the research to date has proved that it is valid.