INTRODUCTION: The measurement of recovery after burns to the lower limbs is hampered by an absence validated injury specific tools. This research aimed to select and validate a battery of outcome measures of recovery after lower limb burn injury (LLBI). METHOD: Reliability study: Reliability of the single leg stance (SLS), the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and the tandem walk (TW) tests were measured using a test-retest trial involving 28 patients with LLBI. Validity study: Clinical data from 172 patients with LLBI were used to compare changes in each LL outcome measure with changes in the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B). RESULTS: All tests, except the SLS test with eyes closed, demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability (ICCs=0.81-0.93). The TUG and the TW-forwards tests were shown to be valid and to provide additional information to the BSHS-B when combined as a battery. The TW-backwards test was redundant while the SLS and ankle DF measures did not correlate highly with the BSHS-B. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the TUG test and the TWF are reliable and valid in the burns population and along with the BSHS-B form a useful test battery for measuring recovery from LLBI. 2009 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: The measurement of recovery after burns to the lower limbs is hampered by an absence validated injury specific tools. This research aimed to select and validate a battery of outcome measures of recovery after lower limb burn injury (LLBI). METHOD: Reliability study: Reliability of the single leg stance (SLS), the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and the tandem walk (TW) tests were measured using a test-retest trial involving 28 patients with LLBI. Validity study: Clinical data from 172 patients with LLBI were used to compare changes in each LL outcome measure with changes in the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B). RESULTS: All tests, except the SLS test with eyes closed, demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability (ICCs=0.81-0.93). The TUG and the TW-forwards tests were shown to be valid and to provide additional information to the BSHS-B when combined as a battery. The TW-backwards test was redundant while the SLS and ankle DF measures did not correlate highly with the BSHS-B. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the TUG test and the TWF are reliable and valid in the burns population and along with the BSHS-B form a useful test battery for measuring recovery from LLBI. 2009 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.