Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CJS
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CJS

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow CJS on Twitter
Research

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale for use in French-speaking populations

Magalie Angers, Amy Svotelis, Frederic Balg and Jean-Pascal Allard
CAN J SURG April 01, 2016 59 (2) 123-127; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.010415
Magalie Angers
From the Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic division, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Estrie — Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l’Estrie CHUS), Sherbrooke, QC (Angers, Svotelis, Balg); and the Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic and traumatology division, Centre de Santé et des Services Sociaux de Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, QC (Allard)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Amy Svotelis
From the Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic division, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Estrie — Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l’Estrie CHUS), Sherbrooke, QC (Angers, Svotelis, Balg); and the Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic and traumatology division, Centre de Santé et des Services Sociaux de Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, QC (Allard)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frederic Balg
From the Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic division, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Estrie — Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l’Estrie CHUS), Sherbrooke, QC (Angers, Svotelis, Balg); and the Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic and traumatology division, Centre de Santé et des Services Sociaux de Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, QC (Allard)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean-Pascal Allard
From the Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic division, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Estrie — Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l’Estrie CHUS), Sherbrooke, QC (Angers, Svotelis, Balg); and the Department of Surgery, Orthopaedic and traumatology division, Centre de Santé et des Services Sociaux de Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, QC (Allard)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: The Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) is a self-administered score specific for ankle osteoarthritis (OA) with excellent reliability and strong construct and criterion validity. Many recent randomized multicentre trials have used the AOS, and the involvement of the French-speaking population is limited by the absence of a French version. Our goal was to develop a French version and validate the psychometric properties to assure equivalence to the original English version.

Methods: Translation was performed according to American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) 2000 guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation. Similar to the validation process of the English AOS, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the French version (AOS-Fr): criterion validity (AOS-Fr v. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index [WOMAC] and SF-36 scores), construct validity (AOS-Fr correlation to single heel-lift test), and reliability (AOS-Fr test–retest). Sixty healthy individuals tested a prefinal version of the AOS-Fr for comprehension, leading to modifications and a final version that was approved by C. Saltzman, author of the AOS. We then recruited patients with ankle OA for evaluation of the AOS-Fr psychometric properties.

Results: Twenty-eight patients with ankle OA participated in the evaluation. The AOS-Fr showed strong criterion validity (AOS:WOMAC r = 0.709 and AOS:SF-36 r = −0.654) and construct validity (r = 0.664) and proved to be reliable (test–retest intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.922).

Conclusion: The AOS-Fr is a reliable and valid score equivalent to the English version in terms of psychometric properties, thus is available for use in multicentre trials.

Ankle osteoarthritis (OA) is defined as degenerative changes of the tibiotalar joint. It is less common than hip and knee OA, and as opposed to those larger joints, less than 10% of cases of OA are primary cases of ankle OA.1 As the most common cause of ankle OA is posttraumatic, many young patients are affected by this condition, and in this otherwise active population, ankle OA treatment can be challenging.2 The progression of ankle OA leads to invalidity and remains difficult to treat without causing functional limitation.3 A study by Glazebrook and colleagues4 in 2008 demonstrated that disability associated with ankle OA was at least as severe as that associated with hip OA.

One of the main treatment options for ankle OA is ankle arthrodesis. However, long-term studies have reported secondary subtalar arthrosis in as many as 50% of patients at 10 years.5 While early total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) designs were associated with high failure rates and complications, biomechanical progress brought forward a new generation of TAA designs with good to excellent results in the intermediate term.6 This renewal in interest for TAA led surgeons to perform this procedure more often. Long-term multicentre studies are required to help surgeons decide whether fusion or TAA is the best treatment option for their patients. Good randomized controlled trials rely on the use of good functional outcome evaluation tools to provide high-quality and valid results.

The Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) is an adaptation of the Foot Function Index, modified specifically for ankle OA, and is often used for research purposes.7,8 The AOS is a self-administered score divided in 2 subscales of 9 items. The first section evaluates pain, while the other is designed to evaluate functional limitations. Each item is answered using a visual analogue scale. The score is known for excellent reliability and strong construct and criterion validity.8 The AOS has been recommended for use in conjunction with the SF-36 for the evaluation of end-stage ankle OA owing to its level of responsiveness and lack of constraint of patient responses.9 Notably, many recent randomized multicentre trials have used the AOS as a measure of ankle OA.6,10

The usability and validity of any functional scale is only as good as its ability to evaluate patients cross-culturally. In order to evaluate a non-English–speaking population, functional score questionnaires in the patients’ native language should be created and validated.8,11,12 At this time, the participation of French-speaking orthopedic patients in multicentre studies is limited by the absence of a French version of the AOS. Our goal was to translate the AOS into French and validate the French version by evaluating its psychometric properties.

Methods

Translation

The study was approved by the ethics committee of theCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Estrie — Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l’Estrie CHUS; protocol #09–130). Following the guidelines for the cross-cultural adaptation process written by the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) in 2000, the translation was performed using a 6-step process:8 initial translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee, test of the prefinal version and submission of the document to the developer. For the initial translation, 2 independent translators whose mother tongue was French translated the scale from English to French. The synthesis step required these 2 translators to meet, discuss and compose a synthesized version of the translated AOS. Two independent translators, blind to the original scale, whose native language was English then translated the synthesized version back to English. An expert committee composed of a linguist, 2 orthopedic surgeons and the 4 translators revised the whole process and consolidated the prefinal version. Sixty individuals without ankle OA then tested the prefinal version by answering the questionnaire and evaluating their comprehension of each item. From the data collected in this step, some sections of the test were changed to improve comprehension and readability. For the final step, the methods for obtaining the corrected French version (AOS-Fr) were submitted to Dr. Charles Saltzman, the developer of the English version, who approved the methodology and use (Appendix 1, available at canjsurg.ca).

Evaluation of psychometric properties

In order to validate the use of the AOS-Fr, we set out to evaluate the psychometric properties of the test among patients with ankle OA using the same process as the original study validating the English version of the AOS.7 We recruited patients with degenerative changes isolated to the ankle at the outpatient orthopedic clinic of CIUSSS de l’Estrie CHUS, Sherbrooke, Que. Most patients were seen for a follow-up of their ankle OA, but a few of them were new consultations. The diagnosis of ankle OA was based on the presence of degenerative changes evident on weight-bearing radiographs. To be included, patients had to consider French as their mother tongue and be able to read and write in French. Patients younger than 18 years and those with additional foot and/or ankle pathologies were excluded.

At the first visit, we collected sociodemographic data (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], occupation) and pertinent medical history (diabetes, neuropathy, ankle or foot fractures), and patients were asked to perform single heel-lift tests of both the affected and unaffected sides. The participants completed 3 questionnaires: the AOS-Fr, SF-36 and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). We assessed criterion validity by comparing the AOS-Fr to the WOMAC and the SF-36 scores, as was done in the original validation of the AOS.7 A research assistant gave participants instructions for completing the questionnaires, and the patients were left to complete the questionnaires alone. Construct validity was established by examining the correlation between the AOS-Fr scores and the single heel-lift test. Finally, to measure test–retest reliability, patients were asked to complete the AOS-Fr a second time and to complete a small questionnaire detailing any modification to the treatment (shoes, orthotics, medication, surgery, injection) 1 week after the first visit and return the questionnaire by mail. Any modification to their treatment between the completion of the 2 AOS-Fr questionnaires would nullify the test–retest reliability, so these patients would be excluded from the analysis.

Power and sample size calculation

The required number of patients was estimated based on properties to assess. The reproducibility (test–retest) of the questionnaire is an important property to assess. Its lower acceptable limit is 0.85. Because the reproducibility of the English version would require at least 0.97, we estimated that the French version would be at least 0.90. A sample of 10 patients was therefore sufficient to obtain a power of 99% with a reproducibility of 0.90.13,14 Concerning validity, our goal was to obtain a statistically significant correlation with the 3 selected tests. We hypothesized that we would obtain the lowest correlation between the AOS-Fr and the SF-36 questionnaire, as the SF-36 is not specific to ankle OA. By estimating an average correlation of 0.50, a sample of 30 patients was required to obtain a significant correlation with a power of 80% and p < 0.05.13,14

Results

Population

A total of 28 patients were included in the study: 18 men and 10 women. Thirteen patients had OA of the right ankle, 12 patients had OA of the left ankle, and 3 patients had bilateral ankle involvement. The mean age was 61 (range 25–83) years, and the mean BMI was 31.2 (range 22.7–46.9; Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Baseline demographic and clinical data for participants with ankle OA (n = 28)

Test–retest reliability

To determine reliability of the AOS-Fr, we compared the scores of the 2 AOS tests completed by the participants, excluding those whose treatments were modified between the tests, as modification may have led to a difference in functional outcome. Between the first visit and the second time answering the AOS-Fr 1 week later, treatment was modified in 9 patients. One patient had an ankle surgery, 2 received a cortisone ankle injection, 3 began wearing orthotics and 3 modified their shoe wear. All of these patients were excluded from the test–retest analysis, leaving 19 patients (Fig. 1). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the AOS-Fr at first visit and after 1 week was excellent. The ICC for the entire score was 0.922 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8–0.97), with 0.895 (95% CI 0.729–0.96) for the pain subscale and 0.915 (95% CI 0.779–0.967) for the disability subscale (Table 2).

Fig. 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1

Breakdown of the 37 participants recruited for the study. Owing to different factors (loss to follow-up, incomplete questionnaires, and treatment modifications between visits), some participants were not included in our analyses. AOS = Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale; OA = osteoarthritis.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Validity of the AOS-Fr

Criterion validity

We used the examination of the WOMAC correlation to the AOS-Fr completed at the first visit to measure criterion validity. Two patients didn’t complete the WOMAC properly and were excluded, leaving 26 patients for the analysis (Fig. 1). The Pearson correlation coefficient between the global AOS-Fr and the WOMAC scores was r = 0.709 (p < 0.001). When comparing the WOMAC scores with the AOS-Fr pain and disability subscale scores, the correlation coefficients were r = 0.677 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.698 (p < 0.001), respectively (Table 2).

We then proceeded to calculate the correlation between the AOS-Fr and SF-36 scores. As described in the original publication of the AOS, we expected a negative correlation between the AOS-Fr and SF-36 scores since an increase in the SF-36 score represents a better function, while a high AOS score suggests poor function.7 Indeed, the correlation coefficient obtained between the AOS-Fr and SF-36 scores was r = −0.654 (p = 0.001). When evaluated separately, the SF-36 strongly correlated with the pain section (r = −0.620, p = 0.003) and with the disability section (r = −0.618, p = 0.003) of the AOS-Fr (Table 2).

Construct validity

Since the single heel-lift ratio is influenced by the results of both ankles, we excluded 3 patients who had bilateral ankle OA, leaving 25 patients for the analysis (Fig. 1). Similar to the SF-36, the single heel-lift is reciprocal to the AOS score, giving a negative correlation. The ICCs between the AOS-Fr and the single heel-lift were r = −0.664 (p < 0.001) overall, r = −0.664 (p < 0.001) for the global score, r = −0.542 (p < 0.001) for the pain score and r = −0.628 (p < 0.001) for the disability score (Table 2).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to produce a valid French version of the AOS that is equivalent to the English version. The final AOS-Fr was validated for reliability, construct validity and criterion validity. The result of the test–retest reliability showed an excellent ICC of 0.922, which was almost equal to the original version (ICC = 0.97).7 Similarly, evaluation of the criterion validity gave a moderate correlation between the SF-36 and AOS-Fr disability scale (r = −0.618, p = 0.003), as found in the English version (r = −0.66, p = 0.001). However, we detected a stronger correlation with the pain subscale (r = −0.620, p = 0.003) than that calculated in the original version (r = −0.34, p < 0.20).7 When studying the correlation between WOMAC and the AOS-Fr pain and disability subscale scores we obtained correlations of 0.667 and 0.698, respectively, which is in line with the results of the English version (0.65 and 0.79, respectively). Examination of the construct validity by calculation of the correlation between the single heel-lift ratio and the AOS-Fr demonstrated less correlation than the original version but still a strong and significant correlation (AOS-Fr: r = −0.664, p < 0.001 v. original: r = 0.88 for the global score; AOS-Fr: r = −0.542, p = 0.003 v. original: r = 0.90 for the pain score; AOS-Fr: r = −0.628, p < 0.001 v. original: r = 0.63 for the pain score).7 Although our study included slightly fewer patients than required in our sample size calculation, we obtained strong and significant correlations with all of our tests.

Conclusion

The AOS-FR is a reliable and valid score. It is equivalent to the original English version in terms of psychometric properties.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Université de Sherbrooke medical students for their help with data collection and the Fondation de recherché et enseignement en orthopédie de Sherbrooke for funding this study.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • Contributors: M. Angers, F. Balg and J.-P Allard designed the study. M. Angers, A. Svotelis and J.-P. Allard acquired the data, which M. Angers and A. Svotelis analyzed. M. Angers, A. Svotelis and F. Balg wrote the article, which all authors reviewed and approved for publication.

  • Accepted December 22, 2015.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Valderrabano V,
    2. Horisberger M,
    3. Russell I,
    4. et al
    .Etiology of ankle osteoarthritis.Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:1800–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Thomas RH,
    2. Daniels TR
    .Ankle arthritis.J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A:923–36.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Coester LM,
    2. Saltzman CL,
    3. Leupold J,
    4. et al
    .Long-term results following ankle arthrodesis for post-traumatic arthritis.J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83-A:219–28.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Glazebrook M,
    2. Daniels T,
    3. Younger A,
    4. et al
    .Comparison of health-related quality of life between patients with end-stage ankle and hip arthrosis.J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:499–505.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Ling JS,
    2. Smyth NA,
    3. Fraser EJ,
    4. et al
    .Investigating the relationship between ankle arthrodesis and adjacent-joint arthritis in the hindfoot: a systematic review.J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97:513–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Nguyen MP,
    2. Pedersen DR,
    3. Gao Y,
    4. et al
    .Intermediate-term follow-up after ankle distraction for treatment of end-stage osteoarthritis.J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97:590–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Domsic RT,
    2. Saltzman CL
    .Ankle osteoarthritis scale.Foot Ankle Int 1998;19:466–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Beaton DE,
    2. Bombardier C,
    3. Guillemin F,
    4. et al
    .Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures.Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3186–91.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Madeley NJ,
    2. Wing KJ,
    3. Topliss C,
    4. et al
    .Responsiveness and validity of the SF-36, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in end stage ankle arthritis.Foot Ankle Int 2012;33:57–63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Daniels TR,
    2. Mayich DJ,
    3. Penner MJ
    .Intermediate to long-term outcomes of total ankle replacement with the Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement (STAR).J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97:895–903.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Bullinger M,
    2. Alonso J,
    3. Apolone G,
    4. et al
    .Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment.J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:913–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Perneger TV,
    2. Leplege A,
    3. Etter JF
    .Cross-cultural adaptation of a psychometric instrument: two methods compared.J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1037–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Streiner DL,
    2. Norman GR
    (2008) Health measurement scales A practical guide to their development and use (Oxford University Press, New York), 4th edition.
  14. ↵
    1. McDowell I
    (2006) Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires (Oxford University Press, New York), 3rd edition.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Journal of Surgery: 59 (2)
CAN J SURG
Vol. 59, Issue 2
1 Apr 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CJS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale for use in French-speaking populations
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CJS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CJS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale for use in French-speaking populations
Magalie Angers, Amy Svotelis, Frederic Balg, Jean-Pascal Allard
CAN J SURG Apr 2016, 59 (2) 123-127; DOI: 10.1503/cjs.010415

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale for use in French-speaking populations
Magalie Angers, Amy Svotelis, Frederic Balg, Jean-Pascal Allard
CAN J SURG Apr 2016, 59 (2) 123-127; DOI: 10.1503/cjs.010415
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Publication Fees
  • Forms
  • Editorial Policies
  • Submit a manuscript

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CJS represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

View CMA's Accessibility policy.

Powered by HighWire