Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaire in Persian speaking participants with a history of ankle sprain

Abstract

The Persian version of IdFAI is a reliable and valid tool to identify patients with functional ankle instability which have a history of ankle sprain. Its original three-factor structure was replicated in this study. Implications for Rehabilitation The Persian version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument in order to identify Iranian patients with functional ankle instability in both clinical practice and research. The Persian IdFAI questionnaire may be considered as a standardized clinical instrument that can be used to classify degree of ankle instability in Iranian Persian-speaking people with a history of lateral ankle sprain. People with a history of ankle sprain can be assessed using IdFAI questionnaire before and after rehabilitative interventions in an attempt to determine any change in their degree of ankle instability over time.

Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the simplified Chinese version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaire in Chinese-speaking patients with chronic ankle instability disorders

“…Therefore, not all the higher Cronbach's α values suggested a better scale [32]. The three subscales of the SC-IdFAI questionnaire also had an acceptable or good internal constancy (Cronbach's α = 0.725-0.882), which were generally in agreement with other previous studies [11,14,19]. The findings also showed that omitting any of the questions would not evidently increase the Cronbach's α value of the SC-IdFAI questionnaire (0.880-0.904).…”

“…In this study, the mean score of the SC-IdFAI questionnaire was slightly higher than that of the other versions (14.3-20.38) [11,19], suggesting that the severity of the CAI was relatively higher in the patients. In addition, the ceiling effect of SC-IdFAI was 1.52%, but not 0 as shown in other versions, suggesting that very few patients obtained a full score in the scale, but the percentage of the patients was far lower than 15%.…”

“…The IdFAI questionnaire has been acknowledged as the most accurate and simple specific scale for assessing CAI, following CAIT and AII. The IdFAI questionnaire has already been translated into four languages and has shown good reliability and validity in several independent studies [11,13,14,19,20]. Therefore, translating the IdFAI questionnaire into the Chinese language was valuable.…”

“…The methods used in the Korean version were more likely for assessing the construct validity of the scale. Besides, the studies on other versions of the IdFAI questionnaire did not assess the construct validity of the scale using the "hypotheses testing" recommended by the COSMIN checklist [11,13,14,19,20]. Such studies only calculated the correlation coefficient of the translated IdFAI questionnaire with other control scales.…”

“…When a reliable and valid scale is used in populations with different cultural backgrounds, testing the psychometric properties of the scale rather than simply translating the content is necessary to avoid the evaluation error caused by cultural differences [17,18]. The IdFAI questionnaire was originally developed in English and has been culturally adapted into four languages, including Korean, Brazilian, Persian, and Japanese, and validated [11,13,19,20].…”