Objective A major barrier to reducing falls among users of lower limb prostheses (LLP) has been an absence of statistical indices required for clinicians to select and interpret scores from performance-based clinical tests. The study aimed to derive estimates of reliability, measurement error, and minimal detectable change values in performance-based clinical tests administered to unilateral LLP users. Methods A total of 60 unilateral LLP users were administered the Narrowing Beam Walking Test, Timed ``Up and Go'' (TUG), Four Square Step Test (FSST), and 10-Meter Walk Test on 2 occasions, 3 to 9 days apart. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess interrater and test-retest reliability, while standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC90) were derived to establish estimates of measurement error in individual scores or changes in score for each test. Results Interrater reliability ICCs (1,1) were high for all tests (ie, ≥0.98). Test-retest ICCs (2,1) varied by test, ranging from .88 for the TUG to .97 for the FSST. SEM and MDC90 varied between .39 and .96 and between .91 seconds and 2.2 seconds for the time-based tests (FSST, TUG, 10-Meter Walk Test). SEM and MDC90 for the Narrowing Beam Walking Test were .07 and .16, respectively. Conclusion With the exception of the TUG, studied tests had test-retest ICCs (2,1) that exceeded the minimum required threshold to be considered suitable for group- and individual-level applications (ie, ICC ≥ 0.70 and ≥ 0.90, respectively). Future research on individuals with dysvascular and transfemoral amputations or in specific age categories is required. Impact Along with published validity indices, these reliability, error, and change indices can help clinicians select balance tests suitable for LLP users. They can also help clinicians interpret test scores to make informed, evidence-based clinical decisions.

Introduction-Prosthetists have limited knowledge of their patients' use of a prosthesis outside of the clinical environment. Prosthesis-mounted monitors can be used to directly measure patients' prosthesis use and activity. Prosthetists' opinions regarding potential clinical applications for sensor-based information may inform further development of this technology. A pilot study was conducted to assess prosthetists' perceptions of prosthesis use and activity information obtained by a monitoring system. Materials and methods-Three local prosthetists were recruited to participate in the study. One patient with transtibial amputation from each prosthetist volunteered to wear limb presence and activity monitors for two weeks. Collected data were used to determine prosthesis use and activity. Each prosthetist completed a survey, examined clinical reports of their patient's prosthesis use and activity, and participated in a semi-structured interview. Survey results and interview transcripts were analyzed to identify and compare prosthetists' perceptions. Results-Prosthesis use and activity varied among patients. Prosthetists over-and underestimated patient activity, relative to measurements recorded by the monitors. All three prosthetists selected multiple clinical applications for the prosthesis use and activity information in the survey, and several additional applications were suggested during the interviews. When presented with multiple report formats, prosthetists found features of each to be clinically useful. Conclusions-Prosthesis-mounted monitors may provide prosthetists with a better understanding of their patients' prosthesis use and activity. Information provided by the monitoring system may inform clinical decisions and promote evidence-based practices.

No abstract

Background Orthoses are often prescribed to improve mobility of people with chronic health conditions that affect lower limb function. Patient‐reported survey instruments can be used to measure aspects of mobility that cannot be easily assessed in clinical or research settings. A population‐specific item bank could be designed to measure aspects of mobility that are most important to lower limb orthosis users and used to evaluate the effects of orthoses. Objective To develop items for a new survey instrument to measure mobility of lower limb orthosis users. Design Survey items were developed using a qualitative item review process. Setting Focus groups were held by video conferencing. Cognitive interviews were conducted by telephone. Participants Focus group and cognitive interview participants were adults with at least 6 months of experience using a lower limb orthosis that extended from the foot to a level above the ankle. Methods Research methods included focus groups with lower limb orthosis users, an item generation and reduction process that involved a stakeholder advisory panel, and cognitive interviews with target respondents. Results A total of 1180 extant items were identified in a literature review. Focus group participants (n = 29) provided feedback that informed the suitability of a construct definition and conceptual model. An advisory panel contributed to the selection of 118 candidate items for measuring orthotic mobility. Feedback from cognitive interview participants (n = 30) informed removal or revision of problematic items, resulting in a candidate bank of 100 mobility items. Conclusions The rigorous qualitative methods applied here resulted in a large set of candidate items that spanned a range of situations relevant to moving with a lower limb orthosis. Next steps include administration of the candidate items to a large sample of lower limb orthosis users and calibration of the item bank.

No abstract