Background. The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure is frequently used by clinicians and researchers to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions for patients with foot and ankle pathologies. To review different versions of the FAAM and to evaluate the methodological quality of studies published in this respect. Methods. Systematic review. Setting. A search was conducted in the PubMed, SCOPUS, PEDro, PROSPERO and SPORTDiscus databases, applying the following inclusion criteria: validation studies of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, in different languages, with no time limit, in a population aged ≥18 years. Two of the present authors independently assessed the quality of the studies located and extracted the relevant data. The COSMIN checklist was employed to assess methodological quality. Results. Thirteen instruments met the inclusion criteria for this review. In many cases, significant methodological flaws were detected, mostly regarding criterion validity and measurement error. Conclusion. Only the Spanish-language cultural adaptation of the FAAM presents adequate methodological quality. Further studies, with greater methodological rigour, are required of the cultural adaptations of this measurement instrument.