Original Research| Volume 56, ISSUE 6, P1209-1212, November 2017

Download started.


Validity and Reliability of Turkish Version of Olerud-Molander Ankle Score in Patients With Malleolar Fracture


      The present study was planned to translate and culturally adapt the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and assess the validity and reliability of the Turkish translation of the OMAS in patients with surgically treated malleolar fracture. The OMAS was adapted for use in Turkish by first translating it and then back-translating it in accordance with published guidelines. The final Turkish version of the OMAS was administered to 91 patients participating in the present study. The OMAS questionnaire was repeated 7 days later to assess test–retest reliability. Spearman's rank correlation analysis was used for each question’s score and the total score, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated for test–retest reliability. The internal consistency of the OMAS-TR was assessed using Cronbach's α. Concurrent validity was evaluated by comparing the OMAS with the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score and global self-rating function (GSRF). The GSRF has 5 options: very good, good, fair, poor, and very poor. These are assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Before validity analysis, the GSRF score was reduced to 3 groups. In the test–retest reliability assessment, the OMAS showed high correlation (r = 0.882). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.942. Cronbach's α was 0.762 and 0.731 at days 1 and 7 (adequate internal consistency). The correlation coefficients versus the 5 subscales of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score ranged from r = 0.753 to r = 0.809 (p = .000) and versus the GSRF was r = −0.794 (p = .000). According to results of the present study, the Turkish version of the OMAS demonstrated adequate test–retest reliability, excellent internal consistency, and evidence of validity for Turkish-speaking patients treated surgically for ankle fracture.

      Level of Clinical Evidence


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Court-Brown C.
        • Caesar B.
        Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review.
        Injury. 2006; 37: 691-697
        • Goost H.
        • Wimmer M.D.
        • Barg A.
        • Kabir K.
        • Valderrabano V.
        • Burger C.
        Fractures of the ankle joint: investigation and treatment options.
        Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014; 111: 377-388
        • Gonzalez T.A.
        • Macaulay A.A.
        • Ehrlichman L.K.
        • Drummond R.
        • Mittal V.
        • DiGiovanni C.W.
        Arthroscopically assisted versus standard open reduction and internal fixation techniques for the acute ankle fracture.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2016; 37: 554-562
        • Beckenkamp P.R.
        • Lin C.C.
        • Herbert R.D.
        • Haas M.
        • Khera K.
        • Moseley A.M.
        EXACT: exercise or advice after ankle fracture: design of a randomised controlled trial.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12: 1-7
        • Hunt K.J.
        • Hurwit D.
        Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95: e118(1-9)
        • Roos E.M.
        • Brandsson S.
        • Karlsson J.
        Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2001; 22: 788-794
        • Nilsson G.M.
        • Eneroth M.
        • Ekdahl C.S.
        The Swedish version of OMAS is a reliable and valid outcome measure for patients with ankle fractures.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013; 14: 109
        • Olerud C.
        • Molander H.
        A scoring for symptom evaluation after ankle fracture.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1984; 103: 190-194
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Bombardier C.
        • Guillemin F.
        • Ferraz M.B.
        Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 3186-3191
        • Munro B.H.
        Statistical Methods for Health Care Research.
        ed 4. JB Lippincott, Philadelphia2000
        • Portney L.
        • Watkins M.
        Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice.
        ed 2. Prentice Hall Health, Upper Saddle River, NJ2000
        • Cronbach L.J.
        Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
        Psychometrika. 1951; 16: 297-334
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Bot S.D.M.
        • de Boer M.R.
        • van der Windt D.A.
        • Knol D.L.
        • Dekker J.
        • Bouter L.M.
        • de Vet H.C.
        Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 34-42
        • Wang R.
        • Thur C.K.
        • Gutierrez-Farewik E.M.
        • Wretenberg P.
        • Broström E.
        One year follow-up after operative ankle fractures: a prospective gait analysis study with a multisegment foot model.
        Gait Posture. 2010; 31: 234-240
        • Hohmann E.
        • Foottit F.
        • Tetsworth K.
        Relationships between radiographic pre-and postoperative alignment and patient perceived outcomes following Weber B and C ankle fractures.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2017; 38: 270-276
        • Naumann M.G.
        • Sigurdsen U.
        • Utvåg S.E.
        • Stavem K.
        Associations of timing of surgery with postoperative length of stay, complications, and functional outcomes 3-6 years after operative fixation of closed ankle fractures.
        Injury. 2017; 48: 1662-1669
        • Turhan E.
        • Demirel M.
        • Daylak A.
        • Huri G.
        • Doral M.N.
        • Çelik D.
        Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS).
        Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017; 51: 60-64
        • Kamper S.J.
        • Maher C.G.
        • Mackay G.
        Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design.
        J Man Manip Ther. 2009; 17: 163-170

      Linked Article

      • Validity and Reliability of Turkish Version of Olerud-Molander Ankle Score in Patients With Malleolar Fracture by Büker et al
        The Journal of Foot and Ankle SurgeryVol. 58Issue 2
        • Preview
          We read the recently reported study by Büker et al (1) with great interest, because we had already reported “Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS)” just 6 months previously (2). First, if the Turkish version is already available and reported, it is not necessary to translate and culturally adapted the same outcome score again. In such a situation, if the authors had already started the study but were too late to report it before our study, they could have used our Turkish version for a different patient population to determine whether it was reliable and valid.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF