BackgroundThe aim of this study was to report the five scales comprising the rating system that the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) devised (JSSF standard rating system) and the newly offered interpretations and criteria for determinations of each assessment item.MethodsWe produced the new scales for the JSSF standard system by modifying the clinical rating systems established by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS scales) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association’s foot rating scale (JOA scale). We also provided interpretations of each assessment item and the criteria of determinations in the new standard system.ResultsWe improved the ambiguous expressions and content in the conventional standard rating systems so they would be easily understood by Japanese people. The result was five scales in total. Four were designed for use specifically for ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal, and lesser metatarsophalangeal-ineterphalangeal sites; and the fifth was for the foot and ankle with rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, we described interpretations and criteria for determinations with regard to evaluation items in each scale.ConclusionsConventionally, the AOFAS scales or the JOA scale have been separately applied depending on the sites or disorders concerned, but it was often difficult to decide on scores during practical evaluations because of differing expressions in different languages and also because of ambiguity in the interpretation of each evaluation item and in scoring standards as well. JSSF improved these scales and added definite interpretations of evaluation items as well as criteria for the rating (to be reported here in part I). Because these steps were expected to improve the reliability of outcomes assessed by each scale, we examined the reliability in scores of the newly developed scales, which are reported in part II (in this issue).

BackgroundThis study evaluated the validity and inter- and intraclinician reliability of (1) the Japanese Society of Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) standard rating system for four sites [ankle-hindfoot (AH), midfoot (MF), hallux (HL), and lesser toe (LT)] and the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) foot and ankle scale and (2) the Japanese Orthopaedic Association’s foot rating scale (JOA scale).MethodsClinicians from the same institute independently evaluated participating patients from their institute by two evaluations at a 1- to 4-week interval. Statistical evaluation was as follows. (1) The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated from data collected from at least two examinations of each patient by at least two evaluating clinicians (Data A). (2) Total scores for the two evaluations were determined from the distribution of differences in data between the two evaluations (Data B); each item was evaluated by determining Cohen’s coefficient of agreement. (3) The relation between patient satisfaction and total score was investigated only for patients who underwent surgery (Data C). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was obtained.ResultsParticipants were 65 clinicians and 610 patients, including those with disorders of the AH (313), MF (47), HL (153), and LT (50) and those with RA (47). From Data A, the ICC was high for AH and HL by JSSF scales and for AH, MF, and LT by the JOA scale. From Data B, the coefficient showed high validity for both scales for AH, with almost no difference between the two scales; the validity for HL was higher with the JOA scale than with the JSSF scale. From Data C, correlations were significant between patient satisfaction and outcome for AH and HL by the JSSF scales and for AH, HL, and LT by the JOA scale.ConclusionsThe validity of both scales was high. Clinical evaluation of the therapeutic results using these scales would be highly reliable.

No abstract