| Name of the Instrument/Tool | Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOxFQ) |
| First Description |
Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, et al. A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Qual Life Res. 2006 Sep;15(7):1211-22. |
| Year | 2006 |
| Domains | |
| Concept of constructs | Foot health |
| Population/Disease | Generic |
| Originally developed for | --- |
| Other rheumatic diseases where can be applied (only if validated) |
--- |
| Additional population with no rheumatic diseases |
Yes Hallux valgus surgery, foot or ankle problems |
| Language: Originally published in | English |
| Available in Language | Finnish, Turkish, Korean, Dutch, Spanish, German, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Danish, Italian, Chinese, French, Persian |
| REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION | |
| Author/s | Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, Jenkinson C |
| Title | A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus |
| Journal | Qual Life Res |
| Year | 2006 |
| Vol | 15 |
| Num | 7 |
| Pages | 1211-22 |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Language | English |
| Other references of interest | |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22323689/ |
| Brief Description |
Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30321978/ |
| Brief Description |
Comparison of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) and the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (SEFAS) in patients with foot or ankle surgery |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33091250/ |
| Brief Description |
Measures of Foot Pain, Foot Function, and General Foot Health |
| Instrument/Tool Translations References | |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26869503/ |
| Brief Description |
Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Spanish Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in patients with foot or ankle surgery |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31882344/ |
| Brief Description |
Development and psychometric performance of the French language version of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) |
| Link | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29409194/ |
| Brief Description |
Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in patients with foot or ankle surgery |
| DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION | |
| Correspondence to | Jill Dawson |
| jill.dawson@dphpc.ox.ac.uk | |
| Address | Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, UK |
| Website | --- |
| Available | --- |
| Links | --- |
| DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT | |
| Type Of Measure | Questionnaire |
| Brief Description |
The MOXFQ is derived from the MFPDI and was originally developed as an outcome measure for hallux valgus surgery. It has recently been amended and validated for use among patients with a variety of foot or ankle problems.The MOXFQ has three foot‐health–related domains: walking/standing problems (seven items), pain (five items), and issues related to social interaction (four items) |
| Number of Items | 16 |
| Range | 0-100 |
| Responses options/scale |
Yes Five‐point Likert scales. |
| Developed for | Research, Clinical practice |
| PRACTICAL APPLICATION | |
| Method of administration | Self-administered |
| Recommendations to score |
Each item is scored from 0 to 4, with 4 denoting most severe. Raw scale scores are then each converted to a metric from 0 to 100, in which 100 denotes the most severe . The summary index score is simply calculated as the sum of the three subscale scores and is also converted to a metric from 0 to 100 |
| Score Interpretation | 0 represents optimal foot health; 100 represents worst foot health. Higher scores therefore represent worse foot health |
| Cut-off points | --- |
| Cut-off points applied to | --- |
| Smallest detectable change if described | --- |
| Smallest detectable change applied to | --- |
| Completion time by the patient | 5-10 minutes |
| Scoring time by the assessor | <5 minutes |
| Training to score | Not necessary |
| Strengths | Useful in clinical practice & research, Widely used |
| Limitations | --- |
| OTHER COMMENTS | |
| Other Comments | --- |