Spanish Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Outcomes Questionnaire in Mexican-Americans With Traumatic Foot and Ankle Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hispanics represent the largest minority group within the US population accounting for an estimated 55.4 million individuals. Enrolling Hispanics into clinical outcome studies is important in order for study populations to be externally valid and representative of the US population. Inclusion of Mexican-Americans in clinical studies is frequently limited by the lack of validated outcome measures. The goal of this study was to validate a Spanish version of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Outcomes Questionnaire (AAOS-FAOQ) in Mexican-Americans with traumatic foot and ankle injuries. METHODS: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation procedure was performed by a committee of bilingual speakers using the following steps: (1) forward translation and adaptation, (2) synthesis, (3) back translation, (4) committee review, and (5) pilot testing. The validation was performed in 100 Mexican-Americans with traumatic foot and ankle injuries. RESULTS: A total of 41 females and 59 males were enrolled in this study. The mean age was 42.98 years (range 18-88). The Spanish version of the Global Foot and Ankle Scale of the AAOS-FAOQ showed statistically significant correlations with all 8 subscales of the Spanish SF-36 as well as the Physical Component Summary scale and the Mental Component Summary scale (P < 0.05). The Global Foot and Ankle scale of the Spanish AAOS-FAOQ demonstrated a test-retest reliability of 0.68. CONCLUSION: We provide a Spanish translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the AAOS-FAOQ. The instrument demonstrates appropriate psychometric properties in Mexican-Americans with traumatic foot and ankle injuries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".