Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
To translate the Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI-5) to Persian and to assess its psychometric properties when applied to a sample of people with lower limb amputation (LLA).
The LCI-5 was administered to 106 Persian speaking people with LLA to determine its internal consistency, item-subscale correlation, test–retest reliability and floor and ceiling effects. To assess the construct validity, each participant’s performance was measured using the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and 2-Minute Walk Test.
Minimum Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 was exceeded by LCI-5 subscales. Item-subscale correlations after correction for overlap were higher than the cuff-off point of 0.40. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.96 for LCI-5 total index in test–retest reliability. LCI-5 showed significant correlation with TUG (r = −0.65, P < 0.01) and 2-Minute Walk Test (r = 0.71, P < 0.01). The LCI-5 mean scores were higher for individuals with unilateral below-knee amputation than participants with above-knee amputation (t = 2.71, P = 0.008) and for individuals with unilateral amputation who do not use walking aids than those who use (t = −4.27, P < 0.01). Floor effect was found for none of the patients with LLA while ceiling effect was reported for 23.6% of patients.
The Persian version of LCI-5 has acceptable levels of internal consistency, item-subscale correlation, test–retest reliability and construct validity. To detect intervention effects, the LCI-5 should be used cautiously in population of physically active and young patients with LLA due to its high ceiling effects.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Gauthier-Gagnon, C., Grisé, M. C., & Lepage, Y. (1998). The locomotor capabilities index: Content validity. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement, 2(4), 40–46.
Gauthier-Gagnon, C., & Grisé, M. C. (1994). Prosthetic profile of the amputee questionnaire: Validity and reliability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75(12), 1309–1314. PubMed
Treweek, S. P., & Condie, M. E. (1998). Three measures of functional outcome for lower limb amputees: A retrospective review. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 22(3), 178–185. PubMed
Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Meryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61–65.
Russek, A. S. (1961). Management of lower extremity amputees. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 42, 687–703. PubMed
Ferriero, G., Dughi, D., Orlandini, D., Moscato, T., Nicita, D., & Franchignoni, F. (2005). Measuring long-term outcome in people with lower limb amputation: Cross-validation of the Italian versions of the Prosthetic Profile of the Amputee and Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire. Europa Medicophysica, 41(1), 1–6. PubMed
Bullinger, M., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Leplège, A., Sullivan, M., Wood-Dauphinee, S., et al. (1998). Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 913–923. CrossRefPubMed
Gauthier-Gagnon, C., & Grisé, M. C. (2006). Tools to measure outcome of people with lower limb amputation; Update on the PPA and LCI. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 18(Suppl), 61–69. CrossRef
Wood-Dauphinee, S. L., Opzoomer, M. A., Williams, J. I., Marchand, B., & Spitzer, W. O. (1988). Assessment of global function: The Reintegration to Normal Living Index. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 69(8), 583–590. PubMed
Collen, F. M., Wade, D. T., Robb, G. F., & Bradshaw, C. M. (1991). The Rivermead Mobility Index: A further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. International Disability Studies, 13(2), 50–54. PubMed
Datta, D., Ariyaratnam, R., & Hilton, S. (1996). Timed walking test–an all–embracing outcome measure for lower limb amputees? Clinical Rehabilitation, 10, 227–232. CrossRef
Muecke, L., Shekar, S., Dwyer, D., Israel, E., & Flynn, J. P. (1992). Functional screening of lower-limb amputees: A role in predicting rehabilitation outcome? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73(9), 851–858. PubMed
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of Life: Assessment. Analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley.
Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 231–240. PubMed
Mazaheri, M., Salavati, M., Negahban, H., Sohani, S. M., Taghizadeh, F., Feizi, A., et al. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Persian version of Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 18(6), 755–759. CrossRefPubMed
Tsutsumi, A., Iwata, N., Watanabe, N., de Jonge, J., Pikhart, H., Fernández-López, J. A., et al. (2009). Application of item response theory to achieve cross-cultural comparability of occupational stress measurement. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 18(1), 58–67. CrossRefPubMed
- The Persian version of locomotor capabilities index: translation, reliability and validity in individuals with lower limb amputation
Seyed Mohammad Ebrahim Mousavi
- Springer Netherlands