Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate how scores from the Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire change over time and with treatment using both distribution-based and anchor-based approaches.
Methods
Eighty children aged 5–16 and their parent or carer completed questionnaires at orthopaedic or trauma outpatient clinics. They were asked to complete and return a second set of questionnaires again within 2 weeks (retest), and then mailed a third set of questionnaires to complete again after 2 months (follow-up). The follow-up questionnaires included a global rating of change ‘transition’ item.
Results
Child- and parent-reported mean domain scores (Physical, School & Play, and Emotional) were all stable at retest, whereas positive mean changes were observed at follow-up. As we hypothesised, trauma patients had poorer scores than elective patients at baseline, and showed greater improvement at follow-up. For trauma patients, mean changes in per cent scores were large (scores improved between 40 and 56 for the Physical and School & Play domains, and 17 and 21 for Emotional); all effect sizes (ES) were large (>0.8). For elective patients, the mean improvement in per cent scores were more moderate (Physical: child 10, ES = 0.4, parent 11, ES = 0.5; School & Play child 0, ES = 0, parent 9 ES = 0.4; Emotional: child 6, ES = 0.2; parents 8, ES > 0.3). Minimal detectable change (MDC90), an indication of measurement error, ranged from 6 to 8. Half the standard deviation of baseline scores ranged from 11 to 18. Minimal important difference could only be calculated for elective patients (9 child and 13 parent ratings), these ranged from 7 to 17.
Conclusions
The findings support the responsiveness and longitudinal validity of the scales. Changes in domain scores of, or exceeding, the MDC90 (6–8) are likely to be beyond measurement error; further work is required to refine the estimate of change that can be considered important.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Morris, C., Liabo, K., Wright, P., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2007). Development of the Oxford ankle foot questionnaire: Finding out how children are affected by foot and ankle problems. Child: Care, Health and Development, 33(5), 559–568.
Morris, C., Doll, H., Wainwright, A., Theologis, T., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2008). Development of the Oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children: scaling, reliability and validity. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Br, 90B(11), 1451–1456.
Guyatt, G. H., Kirshner, B., & Jaeschke, R. (1992). Measuring health status: What are the necessary measurement properties? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45(12), 1341–1345.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Haley, S. M., & Fragala-Pinkham, M. A. (2006). Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Physical Therapy, 86(5), 735–743.
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415.
Norman, G. R., Wyrwich, K. W., & Patrick, D. L. (2007). The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 815–822.
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592.
Revicki, D. A., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Sloan, J. A., Lenderking, W. R., & Aaronson, N. K. (2006). Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 27(4), 70.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., & The Kidscreen Group Europe. (2006). The kidscreen questionnaires–handbook. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M. J., & Jones, D. R. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 2(14), 1–74.
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109.
Eiser, C., & Morse, R. (2001). Can parents rate their child’s health-related quality of life? Results of a systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 10(4), 347–357.
Young, N. L., Williams, J. I., Yoshida, K. K., & Wright, J. G. (2000). Measurement properties of the activities scale for kids. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(2), 125–137.
Daltroy, L. H., Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Goldberg, M. J. (1998). The POSNA pediatric musculoskeletal functional health questionnaire: report on reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Pediatric outcomes instrument development group. Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 18(5), 561–571.
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9), II28–II42.
Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G. (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annu Rev Clin Psychol, 5, 27–48.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the children and families who participated, to nurses Bridget Gray and Lisa Fox for helping with recruitment, to Clare Shakeshaft for data entry, and to Andy King for assistance with data management.
Funding
This study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council through a Research Training Fellowship in Health Services Research held by Dr. Morris.
Conflict of interest
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morris, C., Doll, H., Davies, N. et al. The Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire for children: responsiveness and longitudinal validity. Qual Life Res 18, 1367–1376 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9550-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9550-7