Table 3 Methodological quality and assessment measurement properties
Structural validity | Internal consistency | Reliability | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk of bias | Assessment measurement properties 1 | Risk of bias | Assessment measurement properties | Risk op bias | Assessment measurement properties | |
Garratt, Naumann [32] | doubtful | CFA: LEFS unidimensional TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.091; LEFS multidimensional TLI = 1.00, RMSEA 0.073 TLI waarde ( +), RMSAE waarde (?) | inadequate | Cronbach's alpha (scale) α = 0.96 sufficient structural validity (?), Cronbach's alpha ( +) | adequate | Test–retest ICC 0.91 ( +) |
Hsu, Tsai [31] | ||||||
Lin, Moseley [33] | doubtful | IRT: criteria followed Z- standardized statistic less than 2.0 or ≥ 2.0 (-): 3 items failed to conform to Rasch expectations; no further information reported (?) | inadequate | Baseline Cronbach's alpha α = 0.92, short-term follow-up α = 0.94, medium-term follow-up α = 0.90 sufficient structural validity (?), Cronbach's alpha ( +) | ||
Ponkilainen, Tukiainen [36] | doubtful | Correlation LEFS scores with 15D total score 0.67 (0.57- 0.74), LEFS and FIT index 0.44 (0.31- 0.57), LEFS and VAS general health − 0.66 (− 0.76 to − 0.55) (?) | ||||
Repo, Tukiainen [34] | doubtful | Maximum likelihood factor analysis with oblimin rotation: LEFS loads on two factors, no further information reported (?) | inadequate | Cronbach's alpha (scale) α = 0.96 sufficient structural validity (?), Cronbach's alpha ( +) | adequate | Test–retest ICC 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91- 0.95) ( +) |
Repo, Tukiainen [35] | adequate | IRT: unideminsionality not violated ( +) | inadequate | Cronbachs alpha α = 0.95 sufficient structural validity (?), Cronbach's alpha ( +) | ||
Measurement error | Hypotheses testing for construct validity* | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk of bias | Assessment measurement properties | Risk of bias | assessment measurement properties | |||
Garratt, Naumann [32] | adequate | SDC individual 12.49, SDC group 0.93, MIC not defined (?) | inadequate | Spearman correlation LEFS and OMAS 0.86, LEFS and SEFAS − 0.84, LEFS and SF-36 physical function 0.85, LEFS and EQ-5D index 0.73, ASA classification − .026 * | ||
Hsu, Tsai [31] | inadequate | Correlation LEFS scores with walking speed (r = 0.60, p = 0.044) and step length (r = 0.68, p = 0.021) * | ||||
Lin, Moseley [33] | ||||||
Ponkilainen, Tukiainen [36] | ||||||
Repo, Tukiainen [34] | adequate | SEM 4.1, MIC not defined (?) | inadequate | Spearman correlation LEFS and 15D total index r = 0.66, FIT index physical activity r = 0.46, LEFS and VAS Foot and ankle pain at rest r = − 0.5, LEFS and VAS Foot and ankle pain during activity r = − 0.69, LEFS and VAS Foot and ankle stiffness r = 0.62 * | ||
Repo, Tukiainen [35] | ||||||
Responsiveness construct approach (i.e. hypotheses testing: comparison with other outcome measurement) | Responsiveness construct approach (i.e. hypotheses testing: before and after intervention) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk of bias | Assessment measurement properties | Risk of bias | Assessment measurement properties | |||
Garratt, Naumann [32] | ||||||
Hsu, Tsai [31] | ||||||
Lin, Moseley [33] | inadequate | Guyatt responsiveness ratio: short-term 1.99, medium-term 1.74; External criterion for improvement = the global perceived effect scale (?) | inadequate | Effect size short-term 1.92, medium-term 3.33; standardized response mean short-term 1.91, medium-term 2.95 (?) | ||
Ponkilainen, Tukiainen [36] | ||||||
Repo, Tukiainen [34] | ||||||
Repo, Tukiainen [35] |