Literature DB >> 26874230

Use of the Houghton Scale to Classify Community and Household Walking Ability in People With Lower-Limb Amputation: Criterion-Related Validity.

Christopher Kevin Wong1, William Gibbs2, Elizabeth Sell Chen3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the criterion-related validity of using the self-reported Houghton Scale to classify community-dwelling people with lower-limb amputation according to the suggested score ranges for independent community (Houghton Scale score ≥9), household and limited community (Houghton Scale scores 6-8), and limited household (Houghton Scale score ≤5) walking ability categories as referenced to performance-based balance ability and walking speed criteria.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study.
SETTING: Community-based wellness walking programs in 8 states in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Southeast regions of the U.S. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteers (N=180; 66.5% men, n=118; mean age, 55.5±16y) 7.1±13.1 years since amputation, with transtibial-level amputation in 47% (n=79) and amputation caused by vascular disease in 49.4% (n=89).
INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported data: Houghton Scale, Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire mobility subscale, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. Clinical performance-based measures: balance ability assessed with 3 Berg Balance Scale (BBS) items and walking ability assessed with the timed Up and Go (TUG) test and 2-minute walk test (2MWT). The primary reference criteria were performance-based balance ability measured with the 3 BBS items and gait speed calculated from the 2MWT.
RESULTS: On the Houghton Scale, 45.9% (78/170) of the participants scored ≥9, 30.6% (52/170) of the participants scored between 6 and 8, and 23.5% (40/170) of the participants scored ≤5. The Houghton Scale correlated with the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire mobility subscale (r=.73), ABC Scale (r=.76), balance ability (r=.67), TUG test (r=-.67), and 2MWT (r=.73). The 3 Houghton Scale ability categories differed significantly from each other (P<.05) for all outcome measures: Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire mobility subscale, ABC Scale, balance ability, TUG test, and 2MWT.
CONCLUSIONS: The Houghton Scale demonstrated criterion-related validity by differentiating community-dwelling people with lower-limb amputation into community, limited community/household, and household ability categories that corresponded to performance-based balance and walking criteria. Average prosthetic walking speeds for each category compared with similar walking ability categories defined in other patient populations.
Copyright © 2016 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amputation; Artificial limbs; Mobility limitation; Postural balance; Rehabilitation; Walking

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26874230     DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.01.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  15 in total

1.  Time Since Lower-Limb Amputation: An Important Consideration in Mobility Outcomes.

Authors:  Mayank Seth; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Ryan Todd Pohlig; John Robert Horne; Frank Bernard Sarlo; Jaclyn Megan Sions
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.159

2.  Test-Retest Reliability of Dynamic Balance Performance-Based Measures Among Adults With a Unilateral Lower-Limb Amputation.

Authors:  Jefferson R Cardoso; Emma H Beisheim; John R Horne; J Megan Sions
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 2.298

3.  Step length symmetry adaptation to split-belt treadmill walking after acquired non-traumatic transtibial amputation.

Authors:  Paul W Kline; Amanda M Murray; Matthew J Miller; Noel So; Thomas Fields; Cory L Christiansen
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2020-05-31       Impact factor: 2.840

4.  Differences in Physical Performance Measures Among Patients With Unilateral Lower-Limb Amputations Classified as Functional Level K3 Versus K4.

Authors:  Jaclyn Megan Sions; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Tara Jo Manal; Sarah Carolyn Smith; John Robert Horne; Frank Bernard Sarlo
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.966

5.  Error-augmentation gait training to improve gait symmetry in patients with non-traumatic lower limb amputation: A proof-of-concept study.

Authors:  Paul W Kline; Amanda M Murray; Matthew J Miller; Thomas Fields; Cory L Christiansen
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 1.895

6.  Selecting, Administering, and Interpreting Outcome Measures among Adults with Lower-Limb Loss: An Update for Clinicians.

Authors:  Jaclyn Megan Sions; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Mayank Seth
Journal:  Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep       Date:  2020-08-03

7.  Sex-specific Differences in Multisite Pain Presentation among Adults with Lower-Limb Loss.

Authors:  Emma Haldane Beisheim; Mayank Seth; John Robert Horne; Gregory Evan Hicks; Ryan Todd Pohlig; Jaclyn Megan Sions
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2020-12-12       Impact factor: 3.183

8.  Self-reported socket comfort, mobility, and balance-confidence of individuals with transtibial amputation using pinlock vs suction suspension.

Authors:  Mayank Seth; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Maximilian Tobias Spencer; John Robert Horne; Frank Bernard Sarlo; Jaclyn Megan Sions
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 1.672

9.  Adults with unilateral lower-limb amputation: greater spatial extent of pain is associated with worse adjustment, greater activity restrictions, and less prosthesis satisfaction.

Authors:  Jaclyn Megan Sions; Emma Haldane Beisheim-Ryan; Ryan Todd Pohlig; Mayank Seth
Journal:  Scand J Pain       Date:  2022-02-01

10.  Performance-based outcome measures are associated with cadence variability during community ambulation among individuals with a transtibial amputation.

Authors:  Emma Haldane Beisheim; Elisa Sarah Arch; John Robert Horne; Jaclyn Megan Sions
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 1.895

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.