Please wait a minute...
 Home  About the Journal Editorial Board Aims & Scope Peer Review Policy Subscription Contact us
 
Early Edition  //  Current Issue  //  Open Special Issues  //  Archives  //  Most Read  //  Most Downloaded  //  Most Cited
Aging and disease    2018, Vol. 9 Issue (5) : 861-868     DOI: 10.14336/AD.2017.1215
Orginal Article |
Transcultural Adaptation and Validation of the Spanish Bristol Foot Score (BFS-S)
Emmanuel Navarro-Flores1, Marta Elena Losa-Iglesias2, Ricardo Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo3, Daniel Lopez-Lopez4, *, Juan Manuel Vilar-Fernandez5, Patricia Palomo-Lopez6, Cesar Calvo-Lobo7
1Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Miguel Hernandez de Elche, and Department of Nursing and Podiatry, University of Valencia, Spain
2Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain
3School of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
4Research, Health and Podiatry Unit, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Nursing and Podiatry, Universidade da Coruna, Spain
5Modeling, Optimization and Statistical Inference Research Group, Universidade da Coruna, Spain
6University Center of Plasencia, Universidad de Extremadura, Spain
7Nursing and Physical Therapy Department, Institute of Biomedicine (IBIOMED), Universidad de Leon, Ponferrada, Leon, Spain
Download: PDF(428 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  

The Bristol Foot Score is considered an instrument for measuring the impact of foot problems and pain. It was developed and validated in United Kingdom. Therefore, this aim was to perform the transcultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version. The recommended forward/backward translation protocol was applied for the procedure of translation, transcultural adaptation and validation to Spain. Considering each domain and question, internal consistency and reliability were analyzed through the Crombach alpha (α) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). A very good internal consistency was shown for the 3 domains: concern and pain showed a Cronbach of 0.896, footwear and general foot health of 0.790, mobility 0.887. Each question had a very good test-retest reliability, ranged from 0.721 to 0.963 with no systematic differences (P>0.05) in each question of the Spanish Bristol Foot Score (BFS-S) questionnaire. The test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC 95%): concern and foot pain 0.950 (0.913-0971); footwear and general foot health 0.914 (0.851-0.950), mobility 0.973 (0.953-0.984) and there were no sistematic differences in any domain (P > 0.05). The BFS-S was shown to be a valid and reliable tool with an acceptable use in the Spanish population.

Keywords foot      quality of life      health impact assessment      validation studies     
Corresponding Authors: Daniel Lopez-Lopez     E-mail: manu.navarroflores@gmail.com;marta.losa@urjc.es;ribebeva@ucm.es;juan.vilar@udc.es;patibiom@unex.es;cecalvo19@hotmail.com
About author: These authors contributed equally to this work.
Issue Date: 28 October 2017
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Navarro-Flores Emmanuel
Losa-Iglesias Marta Elena
Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo Ricardo
Lopez-Lopez Daniel
Vilar-Fernandez Juan Manuel
Palomo-Lopez Patricia
Calvo-Lobo Cesar
Cite this article:   
Navarro-Flores Emmanuel,Losa-Iglesias Marta Elena,Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo Ricardo, et al. Transcultural Adaptation and Validation of the Spanish Bristol Foot Score (BFS-S)[J]. Aging and disease, 2018, 9(5): 861-868.
URL:  
http://www.aginganddisease.org/EN/10.14336/AD.2017.1215     OR     http://www.aginganddisease.org/EN/Y2018/V9/I5/861
Total group
Mean ± SD Range N = 53
Men
Mean ± SD Range N = 23
Women
Mean ± SD Range N = 30
P Value
Age, years49.55±16.17 (23-78)54.33±15.32 (47.86-60.79)45.58±16.01 (39.49- 51.66)0.004
Weight (kg)69.26±11.92 (47-98)72.20±9.11 (73.35-81.04)62.68±9.84 (58.93-66.42)0.747
Height (cm)168±0.08 (151-189)1.74±0.7 (1.70-1.77)164±0.05 (161-166)0.756
BMI (kg/m2)24.20±3.37 (17.68-35.54)25.42±0.07 (25.39-25.44)23.18±3.69 (21.77-24.58)0.082
Table 1  Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample population.
TEST (n=53) Mean ± SD (CI 95%)RETEST (n=53) Mean ± SD (CI 95%)ICC (CI 95%)P- valueSEM%CVSEM%LoA Mean diference (limits)MDCP-value Breusch-Pagan
Question 1. Do problems with your feet affect whether you go out of the house to visit family or friends?1.60±0.92
(1.34-1.85)
1.56±0.86
(1.32-1.80)
0.963 (0.936-0.79)0.4190.0051.6840.3210.038
(-0.324-0.999)
0.0140.103
Question 2. Do problems with your feet affect whether you walk to the shops?1.62±0.90 (1.37-1.87)1.67±0.91
(1.42-11.93)
0.959
(0.928-0.976)
0.2610.0082.4240.494-0.057
(-0.348-1.073)
0.0230.239
Question 3. Do problems with your feet affect you when standing still?1.67±0.97
(1.41-1.94)
1.73 ±.092 (1.48-1.99)0.962 (0.935-0.978)0.2610.0082.3440.457-0.057
(-0.348-1.073)
0.0220.001
Question 4. Do problems with your feet affect you when walking on bumpy or stony ground?2.18±1.05
(1.98-2.48)
2.15 ±.1.02
(1.86-2.43)
0.944
(0.903-0.968)
0.5690.0061.2300.2890.038
(-0.460-1.417)
0.0170.007
Question 5. Over the last two weeks how painful have your feet been?2.16±1.29
(1.81-2.52)
2.13±1.27
(1.78-2.48)
0.897
(0.822-0.941)
0.7270.0242.4171.107-0.075
(-1.095-3.377)
0.0680.002
Question 6. Over the last two weeks, how often have you felt this way about your feet?
"I have felt conscious of my feet".
2.81±1.75
(2.32-3.29)
2.64±1.71
(2.16-3.11)
0.918 (0.857-0.953)0.2010.0263.4020.9490.132
(-0.884-2.725)
0.0720.091
Question 7. Over the last two weeks, how often have you felt this way about your feet?
"I have felt fed up about my feet".
2.45±1.68
(1.98-2.91)
2.35±1.69
(1.89-2.82)
0.950
(0.913-0.971)
0.3580.0152.7730.6220.094
(-0.711-2.192)
0.0410.010
Question 8. Over the last two weeks, how often have you felt this way about your feet?
"I have felt worried that my feet will get worse in the future".
2.54±1.61
(1.79-2.69)
2.13±1.56
(1.69-2.56)
0.933
(0.883-0.961)
0.3080.0213.6570.9500.113
(-0.768-2.369)
0.0580.926
Question 9. Over the last two weeks, have you felt this way about your feet?
"I have felt my feet are not really part of me".
1.37±0.62
(1.20-1.55)
1.30±0.57
(1.14-1.46)
0.886
(0.803-0.934)
0.1590.0183.9841.3560.075 (-0.369-1.139)0.0500.163
Question 10. Because of your feet have you had problems sleeping, in the last two weeks?1.24±0.75
(1.03-1.45)
1.28±0.76
(1.07-1.49)
0.984
(0.972-0.991)
0.1590.0032.1110.271-0.038
(-0.185-0.569)
0.0090.055
Question 11. In the last two weeks have you been able to put your everyday
shoes on easily.
1.60±0.83
(1.37-1.83)
1.79±1.02
(1.50-2.07)
0.701
(0.481-0.827)
0.1330.0747.8574.336-0.189
(-0.864-2.664)
0.2040.001
Question 12. Over the last two weeks how often have you been able to wear any
shoes you liked.
1.94±1.44
(1.15-2.34)
2.15±1.59
(1.71-2.59)
0.888
(0.806-0.935)
0.1250.0507.1692.429-0.208
(-0.929-2.865)
0.1380.001
Question 13. If you could afford any shoes you wanted, how easily could you find new
shoes that fit comfortably?
2.16±0.87
(1.92-2.40)
2.11±0.84
(1.87-2.34)
0.860
(0.758-0.919)
0.4970.0151.8690.6960.057
(-0.578-1.781)
0.0410.072
Question 14. In general, would you say your foot health is:2.64±1.19
(2.37-2.97)
2.58±1.18
(2.25-2.91)
0.939
(0.895-0.965)
0.4720.0101.5320.3760.057
(-0.546-1.684)
0.0270.917
Question 15. Would you say your general health is:2.62±0.94
(2.36-2.88)
2.64±0.85
(2.40-2.87)
0.957
(0.925-0.975)
0.7090.0030.5070.104-0.019
(-0.352-1.085)
0.0080.635
Table 2  Results of reliability, test-retest of the Spanish Bristol Foot Score (BFS-S) questionnaire according to each question.
DOMAINTest
Mean ± SD (CI 95%)
Retest
Mean ± SD (CI 95%)
ICC (CI 95%)P-valueSEM%CVSEM %LoA Mean diference (limits)MDCP-value Breusch-Pagan
Concern and pain13.69±7.81
(11.54-15.85)
13.56±7.14
(11.59-15.53)
0.950
(0.913-0971)
0.9450.0210.6850.1530.132
(-3.151-9.714)
0.0580.020
Footwear and general foot health8.35±3.51
(7.38-9.32)
8.64±3.63
(7.63-9.64)
0.914
(0.851-0.950)
0.4870.0592.3540.691-0.283
(-1.933-5.959)
0.1630.002
Mobility5.43 ±2.64
(4.70-6.16)
5.56±2.59
(4.85-6.28)
0.973
(0.953- 0.984)
0.3570.0151.6980.282-0.132
(-0.821-2.533)
0.0430.041
Table 3  Results of reliability, test-retest of the Spanish Bristol Foot Score (BFS-S) questionnaire according to each domain.
Figure 1.  Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement between test and retest for the mobility (A), concern and pain (B), and footwear and general health (C) domains.
[1] Bennett PJ, Patterson C, Wearing S, Baglioni T (1998). Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, 88:419-428.
[2] Jorgensen JE, Andreasen J, Rathleff MS (2015). Translation and validation of the Danish Foot Function Index (FFI-DK). Scand J Med Sci Sports, 25:e408-13.
[3] Gijon-Nogueron G, Ndosi M, Luque-Suarez A, Alcacer-Pitarch B, Munuera PV, Garrow A, et al (2014). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index into Spanish. Qual Life Res, 23:571-579.
[4] Paez-Moguer J, Budiman-Mak E, Cuesta-Vargas AI (2014). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index to Spanish. Foot Ankle Surg, 20:34-39.
[5] Hawke F, Burns J (2009). Understanding the nature and mechanism of foot pain. J Foot Ankle Res, 2:1.
[6] Menz HB, Jordan KP, Roddy E, Croft PR (2010). Characteristics of primary care consultations for musculoskeletal foot and ankle problems in the UK. Rheumatology (Oxford), 49:1391-1398.
[7] Benvenuti F, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Gangemi S, Baroni A (1995). Foot pain and disability in older persons: an epidemiologic survey. J Am Geriatr Soc, 43:479-484.
[8] Mickle KJ, Munro BJ, Lord SR, Menz HB, Steele JR (2011). Cross-sectional analysis of foot function, functional ability, and health-related quality of life in older people with disabling foot pain. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 63:1592-1598.
[9] Kaoulla P, Frescos N, Menz HB (2011). A survey of foot problems in community-dwelling older Greek Australians. J Foot Ankle Res, 4:23.
[10] Barnett S, Campbell R, Harvey I The Bristol Foot Score: developing a patient-based foot-health measure. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, 95:264-272.
[11] Riskowski JL, Hagedorn TJ, Hannan MT (2011). Measures of foot function, foot health, and foot pain: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Lower Limb Outcomes Assessment: Foot and Ankle Module (AAOS-FAM), Bristol Foot Score (BFS), Revised Foot Function Index (FFI-R), Foot Health Status Questionnair. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 63:S229-S239.
[12] Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25:3186-3191.
[13] Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M, et al (2009). The practical impact of differential item functioning analyses in a health-related quality of life instrument. Qual Life Res, 18:1125-1130.
[14] Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard JL, Slade A, et al (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. Med Care, 42:I37-48.
[15] Walmsley S, Williams AE, Ravey M, Graham A (2010). The rheumatoid foot: a systematic literature review of patient-reported outcome measures. J Foot Ankle Res, 3:12.
[16] V Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al (2014). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg, 12:1500-1524.
[17] 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 Heal, 8:94-104.
[18] Landis JR, Koch GG (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33:159-174.
[19] Portney L, Watkins M Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 3rd ed. (HallPP, ed.). New Jersey, 2009.
[20] Bland JM, Altman DG (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet (London, England), 1:307-310.
[21] Jacobson N, Truax P (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol, 59:12-19.
[22] Breusch T, Pagan A (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47:1287-1294.
[23] Cuesta-Vargas A, Bennett P, Jimenez-Cebrian AM, Labajos-Manzanares MT (2013). The psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire. Qual Life Res, 22:1739-1743.
[24] Landorf KB, Radford JA (2008). Minimal important difference: Values for the Foot Health Status Questionnaire, Foot Function Index and Visual Analogue Scale. Foot, 18:15-19.
[25] Altmann J (1974). Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods. Behaviour, 49:227-266.
[26] Rodríguez-Sanz D, Tovaruela-Carrión N, López-López D, Palomo-López P, Romero-Morales C, Navarro-Flores E, et al (2018). Foot disorders in the elderly: A mini-review. Dis Mon, 64(3):64-91
[27] Martinkevich P, Moller-Madsen B, Gottliebsen M, Kjeldgaard Pedersen L, Rahbek O (2015). Validation of the translated Oxford ankle foot questionnaire in 82 Danish children aged between five and 16 years. Bone Joint J, 97-B:420-426.
[1] Qian Sun,Tian Wang,Tian-Fang Jiang,Pei Huang,Ying Wang,Qin Xiao,Jun Liu,Sheng-Di Chen. Clinical Profile of Chinese Long-Term Parkinson’s Disease Survivors With 10 Years of Disease Duration and Beyond[J]. A&D, 2018, 9(1): 8-16.
[2] Daniel López López,Lucía Callejo González,Marta Elena Losa Iglesias,Jesús Luis Saleta Canosa,David Rodríguez Sanz,Cesar Calvo Lobo,Ricardo Becerro de Bengoa Vallejo. Quality of Life Impact Related to Foot Health in a Sample of Older People with Hallux Valgus[J]. A&D, 2016, 7(1): 45-52.
[3] Alexandra Moura,José Madureira,Pablo Alija,João Carlos Fernandes,José Gerardo Oliveira,Martin Lopez,Madalena Filgueiras,Leonilde Amado,Maria Sameiro-Faria,Vasco Miranda,Alice Santos-Silva,Elísio Costa. Effect of Aging in the Perception of Health-Related Quality of Life in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients under Online-Hemodiafiltration[J]. Aging and Disease, 2015, 6(1): 17-26.
[4] Julia Heller,Imis Dogan,Jörg B. Schulz,Kathrin Reetz. Evidence for Gender Differences in Cognition, Emotion and Quality of Life in Parkinson’s Disease?[J]. Aging and Disease, 2014, 5(1): 63-75.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © 2014 Aging and Disease, All Rights Reserved.
Address: Aging and Disease Editorial Office 3400 Camp Bowie Boulevard Fort Worth, TX76106 USA
Fax: (817) 735-0408 E-mail: editorial@aginganddisease.org
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd