Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Self-reported questionnaires are a common method used in identifying individuals with ankle instability. Recently a study illustrated the singular use of any of the most frequently utilized questionnaires failed to significantly predict ankle stability status. Therefore, the purpose of this article was to present information related to the development of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI). METHODS: Volunteers (n = 278; 125 males, 153 females, 19.8 ± 1.4 years) completed the IdFAI on one occasion. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted with principal axis factoring as the extraction method with varimax rotation. Additionally, a discriminant function analysis was conducted to identify a discrimination score and to evaluate the accuracy of the questionnaire. RESULTS: The factor analysis revealed: factor 1 (four questions) explained 53.7% of the variance, factor 2 (four questions) with an additional 17.4%, and factor 3 (two questions) an additional 6.3%. Overall, these factors accounted for 77.4% of the variance. There was a distinct discrimination score of 10.3 to identify people who have the minimally accepted criteria for FAI. Overall, the IdFAI has an accuracy of 89.6%. CONCLUSION: This investigation showed that the IdFAI was a feasible and appropriate way to identify individuals with FAI. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We suggest clinicians and researchers utilize the IdFAI to identify individuals with functional ankle instability since it is a short, simple, easy questionnaire to administer and take, and has been shown to have excellent accuracy.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Janet E. Simon
Oregon State University
Matthew Donahue
Weber State University
Carrie L. Docherty
Indiana University Bloomington
Foot & Ankle International
Indiana University Bloomington
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Simon et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a21fb7b3081c2f8f8e22591 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.3113/fai.2012.0755
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: