Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index into Spanish
- 467 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCross-cultural validation Patient outcome measures Foot pain Rasch analysis
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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-SÃ¸rensen, 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
- 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
- 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
- 36.IBM. (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics 19.0.1: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
- 37.Laboratory, R. U. M. M. (1998). Rasch unidimensional measurement models. Perth: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
- 38.Rasch, G. (1967). An informal report on a theory of objectivity in comparisons. Leyden: University of Leyden.Google Scholar
- 40.Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Lawrence Arlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 43.Wright, B. (1996). Local dependency, correlations and principal components. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 10(3), 509–511.Google Scholar
- 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
- 48.Johnson, T. (1998). Approaches to equivalence in cross-cultural and cross-national survey research. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial, 3, 1–40.Google Scholar