Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 571–579 | Cite as

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index into Spanish

  • Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron
  • Mwidimi Ndosi
  • Alejandro Luque-Suarez
  • Begonya Alcacer-Pitarch
  • Pedro Vicente Munuera
  • Adam Garrow
  • Anthony C. Redmond
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (MFPDI) is a self-assessment 19-item questionnaire developed in the UK to measure foot pain and disability. This study aimed at conducting cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the MFPDI for use in Spain.

Methods

Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes measures were followed in the MFPDI adaptation into Spanish. The cross-cultural validation involved Rasch analysis of pooled data sets from Spain and the UK.

Results

Spanish data set comprised 338 patients, five used in the adaptation phase and 333 in the cross-cultural validation phase, mean age (SD) = 55.2 (16.7) and 248 (74.5 %) were female. A UK data set (n = 682) added in the cross-cultural validation phase; mean age (SD) = 51.6 (15.2 %) and 416 (61.0 %) were female. A preliminary analysis of the 17-item MFPDI revealed significant local dependency of items causing significant deviation from the Rasch model. Grouping all items into testlets and re-analysing the MFPDI as a 3-testlet scale resulted in an adequate fit to the Rasch model, χ 2 (df) = 15.945 (12), p = 0.194, excellent reliability and unidimensionality. Lack of cross-cultural invariance was evident on the functional and personal appearance testlets. Splitting the affected testlets discounted the cross-cultural bias and satisfied requirements of the Rasch model. Subsequently, the MFPDI was calibrated into interval-level scales, fully adjusted to allow parametric analyses and cross-cultural data comparisons when required.

Conclusions

Rasch analysis has confirmed that the MFPDI is a robust 3-subscale measure of foot pain, function and appearance in both its English and Spanish versions.

Keywords

Cross-cultural validation Patient outcome measures Foot pain Rasch analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Firstly, the authors acknowledge the assistance of Isis Outcomes (Isis Innovation Ltd, Oxford UK) for granting permission to use the MFPDI in this study. Permissions to use the MFPDI in all translations can be sought directly from Isis Outcomes (http://isis-innovation.com/outcomes/index.html). Secondly, we would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the University of Manchester for access to the original MFPDI UK data set. Thirdly, we would like to thank our colleagues who helped with data collection: Javier Ramos, Bárbara Pineda, María Reina, Cristina Algaba, Raquel Cintado, Encarnacion Cortes Jeronimo, Irene Garcia Paya and Guillermo Lafuente. Lastly, we would like to thank all patients that took part in this study.

Conflict of interest

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available from the corresponding author) and declared no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work

References

  1. 1.
    Spahn, G., Schiele, R., Hell, A., Klinger, H., Jung, R., & Langlotz, A. (2004). The prevalence of pain and deformities in the feet of adolescents. Results of a cross-sectional study. Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Ihre Grenzgebiete, 142(4), 389–396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benvenuti, F., Ferrucci, L., Guralnik, J., Gangemi, S., & Baroni, A. (1995). Foot pain and disability in older persons: An epidemiological study. Am Geriatrics Society, 43, 479–484.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badlissi, F., Dunn, J., Link, C., Keysor, J., McKinlay, J., & Felson, D. (2005). Foot musculoskeletal disorders, pain, and foot-related functional limitation in older persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(6), 1029.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menz, H., Barr, E., & Brown, W. (2011). Predictors and persistence of foot problems in women aged 70 years and over: A prospective study. Maturitas, 68(1), 83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parsons, S., Breen, A., Foster, N., Letley, L., Pincus, T., Vogel, S., et al. (2007). Prevalence and comparative troublesomeness by age of musculoskeletal pain in different body locations. Family Practice, 24(4), 308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Menz, H. B., Gill, T. K., Taylor, A. W., & Hill, C. L. (2011). Age and gender differences in disabling foot pain using different definitions of the manchester foot pain and disability index. BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 12, 243.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tanamas, S., Wluka, A., Berry, P., Menz, H., Strauss, B., Davies-Tuck, M., et al. (2012). Relationship between obesity and foot pain and its association with fat mass, fat distribution, and muscle mass. Arthritis Care and Research, 64(2), 262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menz, H., & Lord, S. (2001). Foot pain impairs balance and functional ability in community-dwelling older people. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 91(5), 222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menz, H., Morris, M., & Lord, S. (2006). Foot and ankle risk factors for falls in older people: A prospective study. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 61(8), 866.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mickle, K., Munro, B., Lord, S., Menz, H., & Steele, J. (2009). ISB clinical biomechanics award 2009: Toe weakness and deformity increase the risk of falls in older people. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 24(10), 787.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mickle, K., Munro, B., Lord, S., Menz, H., & Steele, J. (2011). Cross-sectional analysis of foot function, functional ability, and health-related quality of life in older people with disabling foot pain. Arthritis Care and Research, 63(11), 1592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaoulla, P., Frescos, N., & Menz, H. B. (2011). A survey of foot problems in community-dwelling older Greek Australians. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 4, 23.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kitaoka, H., Alexander, I., Adelaar, R., Nunley, J., Myerson, M., & Sanders, M. (1994). Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot and ankle international/American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society [and] Swiss Foot and Ankle Society, 15(7), 349.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Budiman-Mak, E., Conrad, K., & Roach, K. (1991). The Foot Function Index: A measure of foot pain and disability. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44(6), 561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bennett, P., Patterson, C., Wearing, S., & Baglioni, T. (1998). Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 88(9), 419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Niki, H., Tatsunami, S., Haraguchi, N., Aoki, T., Okuda, R., Suda, Y., et al. (2013). Validity and reliability of a self-administered foot evaluation questionnaire (SAFE-Q). Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 18(2), 298–320.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garrow, A. P., Papageorgiou, A. C., Silman, A. J., Thomas, E., Jayson, M, I. V., & Macfarlane, G. J. (2000). Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess disabling foot pain. Pain, 85(1), 107–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Menz, H., Tiedemann, A., Kwan, M., Plumb, K., & Lord, S. R. (2006). Foot pain in community-dwelling older people: An evaluation of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. Rheumatology, 45(7), 863–867.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roddy, E., Muller, S., & Thomas, E. (2011). Onset and persistence of disabling foot pain in community-dwelling older adults over a 3-year period: A prospective cohort study. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 66(4), 474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cook, C. E., Cleland, J., Pietrobon, R., Garrow, A., & Macfarlane, G. (2007). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the disability associated with foot pain: An application of item response theory to the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. Physiotherapy, 93(2), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muller, S., & Roddy, E. (2009). A rasch analysis of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 2, 29.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spink, M. J., Menz, H. B., & Lord, S. R. (2008). Efficacy of a multifaceted podiatry intervention to improve balance and prevent falls in older people: Study protocol for a randomised trial. BMC Geriatrics, 8(1), 30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alcacer-Pitarch, B., Buch, M. H., Gray, J., Denton, C. P., Herrick, A., Navarro-Coy, N., et al. (2012). Pressure and pain in systemic sclerosis/Scleroderma-an evaluation of a simple intervention (PISCES): Randomised controlled trial protocol. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 13(1), 11.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berglund, B., Nordström, G., Hagberg, C., & Mattiasson, A. C. (2005). Foot pain and disability in individuals with Ehlers–Danlos syndrome (EDS): Impact on daily life activities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27(4), 164–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bowen, C. J., Edwards, C. J., Hooper, L., Dewbury, K., Sampson, M., Sawyer, S., et al. (2010). Improvement in symptoms and signs in the forefoot of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF therapy. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 3, 10.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ware, J. J., Gandek, B., Keller, S., & IQOLA Group. (1996). Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. In: B. Spilker (ed), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 681–692). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petersen, M., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J., Aaronson, N., Conroy, T., Cull, A., et al. (2003). Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 373–385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tennant, A., Penta, M., Tesio, L., Grimby, G., Thonnard, J.-L., Slade, A., Lawton, G., Simone, A., Carter, J., Lundgren-Nilsson, Ã. s., Tripolski, M., Ring, H., Biering-Sørensen, F., Marincek, C., Burger, H., & Phillips, S. (2004). Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: The PRO-ESOR Project. Medical Care, 42(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scott, N., Fayers, P., Aaronson, N., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2007). The use of differential item functioning analyses to identify cultural differences in responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 115–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaoulla, P., Frescos, N., & Menz, H. B. (2008). Development and validation of a Greek language version of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 6, 39.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ferrari, S. C., Santos, F. C., Guarnieri, A. P., Salvador, N., Correa, A., Hala, A. Z. A., et al. (2008). Indice Manchester de incapacidade associada ao pé doloroso no idoso: Traducao, adaptacao cultural e validasao para a lingua portuguesa. Brazilian Journal of Rheumatology, 48(6), 335–341.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marinozzi, A., Martinelli, N., Panasc√¨, M., Cancilleri, F., Franceschetti, E., Vincenzi, B., et al. (2009). Italian translation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire, with re-assessment of reliability and validity. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 923–927.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 8(2), 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57(8), 1358–1362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    IBM. (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics 19.0.1: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Laboratory, R. U. M. M. (1998). Rasch unidimensional measurement models. Perth: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rasch, G. (1967). An informal report on a theory of objectivity in comparisons. Leyden: University of Leyden.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anderen, E. (1977). Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika, 42, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Lawrence Arlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rosenbaum, P. R. (1989). Criterion-related construct validity. Psychometrika, 54(4), 625–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Masters, G. A. (1982). Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wright, B. (1996). Local dependency, correlations and principal components. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 10(3), 509–511.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Guemin, L., Robert, L. B., & David, A. F. (2000). Incorporating the testlet concept in test score analyses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(4), 9–15.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Smith, E, Jr. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brodersen, J., Meads, D., Kreiner, S., Thorsen, H., Doward, L., & McKenna, S. (2007). Methodological aspects of differential item functioning in the Rasch model. Journal of Medical Economics, 10(3), 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. BMJ, 310(6973), 170.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Johnson, T. (1998). Approaches to equivalence in cross-cultural and cross-national survey research. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial, 3, 1–40.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wright, B., & Linacre, J. (1989). Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70(12), 857.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron
    • 1
  • Mwidimi Ndosi
    • 2
  • Alejandro Luque-Suarez
    • 3
  • Begonya Alcacer-Pitarch
    • 2
  • Pedro Vicente Munuera
    • 4
  • Adam Garrow
    • 5
  • Anthony C. Redmond
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Nursing and PodiatryUniversity of MálagaMálagaSpain
  2. 2.Section of Clinical Biomechanics and Physical Medicine, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal MedicineUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  3. 3.Department of PhysiotherapyUniversity of MálagaMálagaSpain
  4. 4.Department of PodiatryUniversity of SevilleSevilleSpain
  5. 5.The School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social WorkUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations