OBJECTIVES: To describe the development of the Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP) instrument designed to measure ambulatory potential of lower-limb amputees with (AMPPRO) and without (AMPnoPRO) the use of a prosthesis, and to test its reliability and validity. DESIGN: Measurement study using known groups method and concurrence with existing measures. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 191 lower-limb amputee subjects who had completed prosthetic training, 24 in the reliability study (mean age +/- standard deviation, 68.3+/-17.9y, range, 28-99y) and 167 in the validity study (mean age, 54.8+/-18.6y; range, 18-100y). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intra- and interrater reliability; construct validity by known groups method; concurrent validity by comparisons with 6-minute walk test, Comorbidity Index, age, and time since amputation; predictive validity by comparison with 6-minute walk test after controlling for other factors. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was.99 for subjects tested with and without their prosthesis; intrarater reliability was.96 and.97. Both the AMPnoPRO (P<.0001) and the AMPPRO scores (P<.0001) distinguished among the 4 Medicare functional classification levels. The AMP correlated strongly with 6-minute walk scores (AMPnoPRO r=.69, P<.0001; AMPPRO r=.82, P<.0001) and the amputee activity survey (AMPnoPRO r=.67, P<.0001; AMPPRO r=.77, P<.0001), and negatively correlated with age (AMPnoPRO r=-.69, P<.0001; AMPPRO r=.56, P<.0001) and comorbidity (AMPnoPRO r=-.43, P<.0001; AMPPRO r=.38, P<.0001). CONCLUSION: The AMP with and without a prosthesis are reliable and valid measures for the assessment of functional ambulation in lower-limb amputee subjects. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
OBJECTIVES: To describe the development of the Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP) instrument designed to measure ambulatory potential of lower-limb amputees with (AMPPRO) and without (AMPnoPRO) the use of a prosthesis, and to test its reliability and validity. DESIGN: Measurement study using known groups method and concurrence with existing measures. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 191 lower-limb amputee subjects who had completed prosthetic training, 24 in the reliability study (mean age +/- standard deviation, 68.3+/-17.9y, range, 28-99y) and 167 in the validity study (mean age, 54.8+/-18.6y; range, 18-100y). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intra- and interrater reliability; construct validity by known groups method; concurrent validity by comparisons with 6-minute walk test, Comorbidity Index, age, and time since amputation; predictive validity by comparison with 6-minute walk test after controlling for other factors. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was.99 for subjects tested with and without their prosthesis; intrarater reliability was.96 and.97. Both the AMPnoPRO (P<.0001) and the AMPPRO scores (P<.0001) distinguished among the 4 Medicare functional classification levels. The AMP correlated strongly with 6-minute walk scores (AMPnoPRO r=.69, P<.0001; AMPPRO r=.82, P<.0001) and the amputee activity survey (AMPnoPRO r=.67, P<.0001; AMPPRO r=.77, P<.0001), and negatively correlated with age (AMPnoPRO r=-.69, P<.0001; AMPPRO r=.56, P<.0001) and comorbidity (AMPnoPRO r=-.43, P<.0001; AMPPRO r=.38, P<.0001). CONCLUSION: The AMP with and without a prosthesis are reliable and valid measures for the assessment of functional ambulation in lower-limb amputee subjects. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Authors: Brian J Hafner; Susan E Spaulding; Rana Salem; Sara J Morgan; Ignacio Gaunaurd; Robert Gailey Journal: Prosthet Orthot Int Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: M Jason Highsmith; Jason T Kahle; Rebecca M Miro; M Elaine Cress; William S Quillen; Stephanie L Carey; Rajiv V Dubey; Larry J Mengelkoch Journal: Technol Innov Date: 2016-09-01
Authors: Shane R Wurdeman; Kendra K Schmid; Sara A Myers; Adam L Jacobsen; Nicholas Stergiou Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Sara J Morgan; Dagmar Amtmann; Daniel C Abrahamson; Andre J Kajlich; Brian J Hafner Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 4.147