Literature DB >> 27590443

Construct Validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) in Adults With Lower Limb Amputation.

Brian J Hafner1, Ignacio A Gaunaurd2, Sara J Morgan3, Dagmar Amtmann3, Rana Salem3, Robert S Gailey2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess construct validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), a self-report mobility measure for people with lower limb amputation (LLA).
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Private prosthetic clinics (n=37). PARTICIPANTS: Current lower limb prosthesis users (N=199; mean age ± SD, 55.4±14.3y; 71.4% men) were assessed before receiving a replacement prosthesis, prosthetic socket, and/or prosthetic knee.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Convergent construct validity was examined using correlations between participants' PLUS-M T-scores and measures of physical function, mobility, and balance, including the Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP), timed Up and Go (TUG), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Subscale (PEQ-MS), and Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. Known-groups construct validity was evaluated by comparing differences in PLUS-M T-scores among participants grouped by Medicare Functional Classification Level (MFCL).
RESULTS: PLUS-M T-scores demonstrated a moderate positive relationship with AMP scores (ρ=.54, P<.001) and a moderate negative relationship with TUG times (ρ=-.56, P<.001). The PLUS-M also showed a strong positive relationship with PEQ-MS scores (ρ=.78, P<.001), ABC Scale scores (ρ=.81, P<.001), and PROMIS-PF T-scores (ρ=.81, P<.001). Significant differences (P<.05) in PLUS-M T-scores were found among groups of people classified by different MFCLs.
CONCLUSIONS: Study results support the validity of the PLUS-M as a self-report measure of prosthetic mobility. Correlations between PLUS-M and measures of physical function, mobility, and balance indicate convergent construct validity. Similarly, significant differences in PLUS-M T-scores across MFCL groups provide evidence of known-groups construct validity. In summary, evidence indicates that PLUS-M has good construct validity among people with LLA.
Copyright © 2016 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amputation; Artificial limbs; Motor activity; Movement; Outcome assessment (health care); Rehabilitation; Self report

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27590443      PMCID: PMC5276724          DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.07.026

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


  51 in total

1.  Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century.

Authors:  R D Hays; L S Morales; S P Reise
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Mobility outcome following unilateral lower limb amputation.

Authors:  B Davies; D Datta
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.895

Review 3.  Outcomes in lower limb amputation following trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jowan G Penn-Barwell
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 2.586

4.  The PROMIS initiative: involvement of rehabilitation stakeholders in development and examples of applications in rehabilitation research.

Authors:  Dagmar Amtmann; Karon F Cook; Kurt L Johnson; David Cella
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 5.  Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment.

Authors:  Alan M Jette; Stephen M Haley
Journal:  J Rehabil Med       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale.

Authors:  L E Powell; A M Myers
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 6.053

7.  Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: Rasch analysis of the mobility section of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire.

Authors:  Franco Franchignoni; Andrea Giordano; Giorgio Ferriero; Duccio Orlandini; Amedeo Amoresano; Laura Perucca
Journal:  J Rehabil Med       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?

Authors:  Joanne Greenhalgh
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency.

Authors:  Matthias Rose; Jakob B Bjorner; Barbara Gandek; Bonnie Bruce; James F Fries; John E Ware
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Item response theory, computerized adaptive testing, and PROMIS: assessment of physical function.

Authors:  James F Fries; James Witter; Matthias Rose; David Cella; Dinesh Khanna; Esi Morgan-DeWitt
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 4.666

View more
  29 in total

1.  A study to assess whether fixed-width beam walking provides sufficient challenge to assess balance ability across lower limb prosthesis users.

Authors:  Andrew Sawers; Brian J Hafner
Journal:  Clin Rehabil       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 3.477

2.  Using Clinical Balance Tests to Assess Fall Risk among Established Unilateral Lower Limb Prosthesis Users: Cutoff Scores and Associated Validity Indices.

Authors:  Andrew Sawers; Brian J Hafner
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2019-05-03       Impact factor: 2.298

3.  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

4.  Narrowing beam-walking is a clinically feasible approach for assessing balance ability in lower-limb prosthesis users.

Authors:  Andrew Sawers; Brian J Hafner
Journal:  J Rehabil Med       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  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

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.  The feasibility and validity of a wearable sensor system to assess the stability of high-functioning lower-limb prosthesis users.

Authors:  Kyle T Miller; Molly Russell; Terese Jenks; Kaddie Surratt; Kelly Poretti; Samantha S Eigenbrot; Jonathan S Akins; Matthew J Major
Journal:  J Prosthet Orthot       Date:  2020-08-11

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.  Modifications of the pirogoff amputation technique in adults: A retrospective analysis of 123 cases.

Authors:  Octavian Andronic; Thomas Boeni; Marco D Burkhard; Dominik Kaiser; Martin C Berli; Felix W A Waibel
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-11-01

10.  Mobility Analysis of AmpuTees (MAAT 6): Mobility, Satisfaction, and Quality of Life among Long-Term Dysvascular/Diabetic Prosthesis Users-Results of a Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Authors:  Shane R Wurdeman; Phillip M Stevens; James H Campbell
Journal:  J Prosthet Orthot       Date:  2020-02-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.