Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 1–7 | Cite as

The Persian version of locomotor capabilities index: translation, reliability and validity in individuals with lower limb amputation

  • Mahyar Salavati
  • Masood Mazaheri
  • Fatemeh Khosrozadeh
  • Seyed Mohammad Ebrahim Mousavi
  • Hossein Negahban
  • Hadi Shojaei
Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Locomotor Capabilities Index Persian-version Psychometric properties Lower limb amputation 

References

  1. 1.
    Rommers, G. M., Vos, L. D., Groothoff, J. W., & Eisma, W. H. (2001). Mobility of people with lower limb amputations: scales and questionnaires: A review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 15(1), 92–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gauthier-Gagnon, C., Grisé, M. C., & Lepage, Y. (1998). The locomotor capabilities index: Content validity. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement, 2(4), 40–46.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grisé, M. C., Gauthier-Gagnon, C., & Martineau, G. G. (1993). Prosthetic profile of people with lower extremity amputation: Conception and design of a follow-up questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74(8), 862–870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Meryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61–65.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Russek, A. S. (1961). Management of lower extremity amputees. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 42, 687–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller, W. C., Deathe, A. B., & Speechley, M. (2001). Lower extremity prosthetic mobility: A comparison of 3 self-report scales. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(10), 1432–1440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Houghton, A. D., Taylor, P. R., Thurlow, S., Rootes, E., & McColl, I. (1992). Success rates for rehabilitation of vascular amputees: Implications for preoperative assessment and amputation level. British Journal of Surgery, 79(8), 753–755.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Legro, M. W., Reiber, G. D., Smith, D. G., del Aguila, M., Larsen, J., & Boone, D. (1998). Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: Assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79(8), 931–938.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franchignoni, F., Orlandini, D., Ferriero, G., & Moscato, T. A. (2004). Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the locomotor capabilities index in adults with lower-limb amputation undergoing prosthetic training. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(5), 743–748.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larsson, B., Johannesson, A., Andersson, I. H., & Atroshi, I. (2009). The Locomotor Capabilities Index; validity and reliability of the Swedish version in adults with lower limb amputation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Datta, D., Ariyaratnam, R., & Hilton, S. (1996). Timed walking test–an all–embracing outcome measure for lower limb amputees? Clinical Rehabilitation, 10, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schoppen, T., Boonstra, A., Groothoff, J. W., de Vries, J., Göeken, L. N., & Eisma, W. H. (1999). The Timed “up and go” test: Reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(7), 825–828.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Bruin, A. F., Diederiks, J. P., de Witte, L. P., Stevens, F. C., & Philipsen, H. (1994). The development of a short generic version of the Sickness Impact Profile. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(4), 407–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kempen, G. I., Miedema, I., Ormel, J., & Molenaar, W. (1996). The assessment of disability with the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Conceptual framework and psychometric properties. Social Science and Medicine, 43(11), 1601–1610.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brooks, D., Parsons, J., Hunter, J. P., Devlin, M., & Walker, J. (2001). The 2-minute walk test as a measure of functional improvement in persons with lower limb amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82(10), 1478–1483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ware, J. E., Jr., & Gandek, B. (1998). Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 903–912.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brooks, D., Hunter, J. P., Parsons, J., Livsey, E., Quirt, J., & Devlin, M. (2002). Reliability of the two-minute walk test in individuals with transtibial amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(11), 1562–1565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of Life: Assessment. Analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(10), 1033–1039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Ostelo, R. W., Beckerman, H., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: Distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(1), 54–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    de Vet, H. C., Ostelo, R. W., Terwee, C. B., van der Roer, N., Knol, D. L., Beckerman, H., et al. (2007). Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 131–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., Knol, D. L., De Boer, M. R., & de Vet, H. C. (2009). Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1062–1067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahyar Salavati
    • 1
  • Masood Mazaheri
    • 2
  • Fatemeh Khosrozadeh
    • 3
  • Seyed Mohammad Ebrahim Mousavi
    • 3
  • Hossein Negahban
    • 4
  • Hadi Shojaei
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Physical TherapyUniversity of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Musculoskeletal Research Center, School of Rehabilitation SciencesIsfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran
  3. 3.Department of Orthotics and ProstheticsUniversity of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation SciencesTehranIran
  4. 4.Department of Physical Therapy, School of Rehabilitation SciencesAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran
  5. 5.Janbazan Biomedical Research CenterUniversity of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations