The side-hop, timed-hopping, multiple-hop, and foot-lift seem the best FPTs to evaluate individuals with CAI. There was a large degree of heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting, potentially limiting the clinical implementation of these FPTs. These tests are cheap, effective, alternatives compared with instrumented measures.

The Korean versions of the IdFAI have shown to be an excellent, reliable, and valid instrument. The Korean versions of the IdFAI can be utilized to assess the presence of Chronic Ankle Instability by researchers and clinicians working among Korean-speaking populations. Implications for rehabilitation The high recurrence rate of sprains may result into Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI). The Identification of Functional Ankle Instability Tool (IdFAI) has been validated and recommended to identify patients with Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI). The Korean version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability Tool (IdFAI) may be also recommend to researchers and clinicians for assessing the presence of Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI) in Korean-speaking population.

Using SLHT and SEBT resulted in improved recognition of participants designated into the CAI or control groups. Self-report perception of ankle function provides limited information for clinicians and researchers. Using multiple clinical function tests may be more helpful in determining deficits and intervention effectiveness.

Diagnostic accuracy of the talar tilt test is not well established in a chronic ankle instability (CAI) population. Our purpose was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of instrumented and manual talar tilt tests in a group with varied ankle injury history compared with a reference standard of self-report questionnaire. Ninety-three individuals participated, with analysis occurring on 88 (39 CAI, 17 ankle sprain copers, and 32 healthy controls). Participants completed the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool, arthrometer inversion talar tilt tests (LTT), and manual medial talar tilt stress tests (MTT). The ability to determine CAI status using the LTT and MTT compared with a reference standard was performed. The sensitivity (95% confidence intervals) of LTT and MTT was low [LTT = 0.36 (0.23-0.52), MTT = 0.49 (0.34-0.64)]. Specificity was good to excellent (LTT: 0.72-0.94; MTT: 0.78-0.88). Positive likelihood ratio (+ LR) values for LTT were 1.26-6.10 and for MTT were 2.23-4.14. Negative LR for LTT were 0.68-0.89 and for MTT were 0.58-0.66. Diagnostic odds ratios ranged from 1.43 to 8.96. Both clinical and arthrometer laxity testing appear to have poor overall diagnostic value for evaluating CAI as stand-alone measures. Laxity testing to assess CAI may only be useful to rule in the condition.