Validity and reliability of the French version of the quick‐FAAM (Q‐FAAM‐F) among patients undergoing anatomic ankle ligament reconstruction

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the validity and reliability of the French version of the Quick Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (Q‑FAAM‑F) in French‑speaking patients with chronic lateral ankle instability (CLAI). Methods We conducted a prospective observational cohort in a sports surgery centre with repeated assessments preoperatively, and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively; the primary analysis was cross‑sectional at 6 months. Consecutive CLAI patients undergoing anatomic lateral ankle ligament reconstruction (AALR) were included. Patients completed the Q‑FAAM‑F (12 items derived from the validated French FAAM) alongside the full FAAM, FAOS, ALR‑RSI, CAIT and VAS‑pain. Internal consistency (Cronbach's α ), item–total and inter‑item correlations, and construct validity (Pearson's r ) were calculated. Discriminant validity used ROC analyses for CLAI status (CAIT < 24) and return to sport (RTS), defined on the RTS continuum as return to the pre‑injury sport at any level at 6 months and treated as an external clinical variable. Results Among 275 patients (56% male; median age 32 years), Q‑FAAM‑F showed excellent internal consistency ( α = 0.96) and strong item–total correlations (mean r ≈ 0.65). Convergent validity was strong with the FAAM ( r = 0.95) and with FAOS and ALR‑RSI; divergent validity was supported by the absence of correlation with CAIT of the nonoperated limb. ROC AUC for CLAI status and RTS were high; optimal cut‑offs were 78.1/100 (CLAI: sensitivity 81.3%, specificity 85.4%) and 80.2/100 (RTS: sensitivity 75.4%, specificity 87.9%). Conclusion The Q‑FAAM‑F is a valid and reliable PROM for French‑speaking CLAI patients, suitable for clinical practice and research. Precise AUC‑based thresholds may support clinical decision‑making at 6 months. Level of Evidence Level III.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.