Publication: Cross-cultural adaptation of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool – Youth Thai version
39
Issued Date
2020-12-01
Resource Type
ISSN
1442200X
13288067
13288067
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85096688923
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Pediatrics International. Vol.62, No.12 (2020), 1374-1380
Suggested Citation
Supannikar Kadli, Raweewan Lekskulchai, Chutima Jalayondeja, Claire E. Hiller Cross-cultural adaptation of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool – Youth Thai version. Pediatrics International. Vol.62, No.12 (2020), 1374-1380. doi:10.1111/ped.14320 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/60526
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Cross-cultural adaptation of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool – Youth Thai version
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© 2020 Japan Pediatric Society Background: This study aimed to translate the original version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAITY) into a Thai version by using cross-cultural adaptation, and to examine the psychometric properties and cut-off score of the CAITY – Thai version (CAITY-T). Methods: Six cross-cultural adaptation steps were used to translate and validate the psychometric properties with 267 participants, 140 with chronic ankle instability (CAI) and 127 without CAI. Their mean age was 12.3 ± 2.42 years. Validation was carried out for internal consistency and concurrent validity against a visual analog scale for global perceived ankle instability, and for discriminant validity (receiver operating characteristic curve). The CAITY-T was completed twice by 133 volunteer children (49.62%) for test-retest reliability. The cut-off score was determined using Youden’s index. Results: The CAITY was successfully adapted for the Thai language. Validation showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.767) and concurrent validity (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.8 right ankle and 0.784 left ankle). The test-retest reliability was substantial with an intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) of 0.865 (95% Confidence Interval = 0.809–0.904). The receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden’s index showed the cut-off score that discriminated between children with and without CAI on the CAITY-T at ≤25. The CAITY-T obtained 95.2% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 0.05 negative, and 32 positive likelihood ratios. Conclusion: The CAITY-T was valid and available for Thai children aged 8–16 years. It displayed positive reliability, good validity, and an acceptable cut-off score. The cut-off score for children had high sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios.