OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of both the standard and revised Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI) in people with lower-limb amputation who undergo prosthetic training. DESIGN: Reliability and validity study. SETTING: Two freestanding rehabilitation centers. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty inpatients with a recent unilateral lower-limb amputation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. Main outcome measures The standard LCI and a new version with a 5-level ordinal scale (LCI-5) were tested for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, ceiling effect, and effect size. The construct validity of both versions was analyzed by correlation with the Rivermead Mobility Index, a timed walking test, and the FIM instrument. RESULTS: The Cronbach alpha of both LCI versions was.95. The item-to-total correlations (Spearman rho) ranged from.50 to.87 (P<.0001 for all). The percent agreement and kappa values for the item scores ranged, respectively, from 78.4% to 100% and.58 to 1.00 in the LCI, and from 75.7% to 97.3% and.54 to.96 in the LCI-5. The intraclass correlation coefficient (model 2,1) for the total scores was.98 for both versions; the Bland-Altman plot revealed no systematic trend for either version. Both the LCI and LCI-5 correlated with all criterion measures (rho range,.61-.76), with the LCI-5 showing a larger effect size during the rehabilitation period and a lower ceiling effect. Patients with transtibial amputation were more independent in performing activities than were those with transfemoral amputation; their locomotor capability negatively correlated with age. CONCLUSIONS: Both the LCI and LCI-5 captured the global locomotor ability of people with lower-limb amputation during prosthetic training. The new LCI-5 presents similar and sometimes better psychometric properties than the standard LCI.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of both the standard and revised Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI) in people with lower-limb amputation who undergo prosthetic training. DESIGN: Reliability and validity study. SETTING: Two freestanding rehabilitation centers. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty inpatients with a recent unilateral lower-limb amputation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. Main outcome measures The standard LCI and a new version with a 5-level ordinal scale (LCI-5) were tested for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, ceiling effect, and effect size. The construct validity of both versions was analyzed by correlation with the Rivermead Mobility Index, a timed walking test, and the FIM instrument. RESULTS: The Cronbach alpha of both LCI versions was.95. The item-to-total correlations (Spearman rho) ranged from.50 to.87 (P<.0001 for all). The percent agreement and kappa values for the item scores ranged, respectively, from 78.4% to 100% and.58 to 1.00 in the LCI, and from 75.7% to 97.3% and.54 to.96 in the LCI-5. The intraclass correlation coefficient (model 2,1) for the total scores was.98 for both versions; the Bland-Altman plot revealed no systematic trend for either version. Both the LCI and LCI-5 correlated with all criterion measures (rho range,.61-.76), with the LCI-5 showing a larger effect size during the rehabilitation period and a lower ceiling effect. Patients with transtibial amputation were more independent in performing activities than were those with transfemoral amputation; their locomotor capability negatively correlated with age. CONCLUSIONS: Both the LCI and LCI-5 captured the global locomotor ability of people with lower-limb amputation during prosthetic training. The new LCI-5 presents similar and sometimes better psychometric properties than the standard LCI.
Authors: Jaclyn Megan Sions; Tara Jo Manal; John Robert Horne; Frank Bernard Sarlo; Ryan Todd Pohlig Journal: Physiother Theory Pract Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Cory L Christiansen; Thomas Fields; Guy Lev; Ryan O Stephenson; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: PM R Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Mahyar Salavati; Masood Mazaheri; Fatemeh Khosrozadeh; Seyed Mohammad Ebrahim Mousavi; Hossein Negahban; Hadi Shojaei Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Brian J Hafner; Ignacio A Gaunaurd; Sara J Morgan; Dagmar Amtmann; Rana Salem; Robert S Gailey Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Marilys G Randolph; Leonard Elbaum; Pey-Shan Wen; Denis Brunt; Jessy Larsen; Anahid Kulwicki; Mario De la Rosa Journal: J Prosthet Orthot Date: 2014-10-01
Authors: Deanna H Gates; Jonathan B Dingwell; Shawn J Scott; Emily H Sinitski; Jason M Wilken Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 2.840