The reliability and validity of a digital version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool.

PURPOSE: The Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool is a common patient reported outcome used to assess those with Chronic Ankle Instability. However, paper versions of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool have only been assessed for reliability purposes. The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement and reliability of a digital version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool-Digital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight participants with a history of ankle sprain(s) were recruited to participate in this study. Participants completed a paper version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool and a digital version then returned one week later and completed them again. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Kappa coefficients were used to determine the agreement between the paper and digital versions as well as test-retest reliability between the two time periods. RESULTS: The digital version showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.96) with the paper version. The test-retest reliability between testing sessions was considered good (ICC = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.92). A majority of individual items on the digital version demonstrated substantial agreement (κ = 0.60-0.81) with the paper version. CONCLUSIONS: A digital version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool demonstrated good to excellent psychometric properties. Clinicians who utilize a digital version as part of an electronic medical record system can utilize them confidently to accurately assess patients with Chronic Ankle Instability. Future studies may want to consider assessing a digital version with expanded clinical and research populations.Implications for rehabilitationThe digital version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool demonstrated adequate psychometric properties.The digital version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool can be considered a reliable instrument for the assessment of Chronic Ankle Instability.A digital version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool can provide automated scoring and quick administration for clinicians in a rehabilitation setting.

Does the Method of Administration Affect Reliability of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure?

BACKGROUND: Region-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly used in rehabilitation medicine. Digital versions of PROs may be implemented into electronic medical records and are also commonly used in research, but the validity of this method of administration (MOA) must be established. PURPOSE: To determine the agreement between and compare the test-retest reliability of a paper version (FAAM-P) and digital version (FAAM-D) of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, nonblinded, crossover observational study. METHODS: A total of 90 adults were randomized to complete the FAAM-P or FAAM-D first, and then completed the second MOA (first day [D1]). The FAAM-D was a digital adaptation of both FAAM-P subscales on Qualtrics. Identical test procedures were completed 1 week later (D2). Data were removed if a participant scored 100% on both MOA, reported injury between D1 and D2, or did not complete both MOA. Agreement was assessed on 46 participants between the 2 MOA using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) at D1. There was good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for the FAAM activities of daily living. RESULTS: The authors observed good agreement between the FAAM-P and FAAM-D for the activities of daily living (ICC = .88) and sport scales (ICC = .87). Test-retest reliability was good-to-excellent for the FAAM activities of daily living (FAAM-P: ICC = .87; FAAM-D: ICC = .89) and sport (FAAM-P: ICC = .71; FAAM-D: ICC = .91). CONCLUSIONS: The MOA does not appear to affect the responses on the FAAM; however, the authors observed slightly higher reliability on the FAAM-D. The FAAM-D is sufficient to be used for generating practice-based evidence in rehabilitation medicine.