The Persian version of locomotor capabilities index: translation, reliability and validity in individuals with lower limb amputation
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.
KeywordsLocomotor Capabilities Index Persian-version Psychometric properties Lower limb amputation
- 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
- 6.Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Meryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61–65.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 26.Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of Life: Assessment. Analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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