Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 20, 2025

Evaluating Postural Control and Lower-extremity Muscle Activation in Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability
Published on: September 18, 2020
Cross-cultural adaptation of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool - Youth Thai version
Supannikar Kadli1, Raweewan Lekskulchai1, Chutima Jalayondeja1
1Faculty of Physical Therapy, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
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.

