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=55.4±14.3 years, 71.4% male) were assessed before receiving a replacement prosthesis, prosthetic socket, and/or prosthetic knee. Intervention Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s) 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 Scale (ABC). 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 (rho=0.54, p<0.001) and a moderate negative relationship with TUG times (rho=- 0.56, p<0.001). The PLUS-M also showed a strong positive relationship with PEQ-MS scores (rho=0.78, p<0.001), ABC scores (rho=0.81, p<0.001), and PROMIS-PF T-scores (rho=0.81, p<0.001). Significant differences (p<0.05) in PLUS-M T-scores were found among groups of people classified by different MFCLs. Conclusion Study results support 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.

Documentation of clinical outcomes is increasingly expected in delivery of prosthetic services and devices. However, many outcome measures suitable for use in clinical care and research have not been psychometrically tested with prosthesis users. The aim of this study was to determine test-retest reliability, mode-of-administration (MoA) equivalence, standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC) of standardized, self-report instruments that assess constructs of importance to people with lower limb loss. Prosthesis users (n=201) were randomly assigned to groups based on MoA (i.e., paper, electronic, or mixed-mode). Participants completed two surveys 2-3 days apart. Instruments included the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire–Mobility Subscale, Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, Quality of Life in Neurological Conditions–Applied Cognition/General Concerns, Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Profile, and Socket Comfort Score. Intraclass correlation coefficients indicated all instruments are appropriate for group-level comparisons and select instruments are suitable for individual-level applications. Several instruments showed evidence of possible floor and ceiling effects. All were equivalent across MoAs. SEM and MDC were quantified to facilitate interpretation of outcomes and change scores. These results can enhance clinicians' and researchers' ability to select, apply, and interpret scores from instruments administered to prosthesis users.

Background Outcome measures can be used in prosthetic practices to evaluate interventions, inform decision making, monitor progress, document outcomes, and justify services. Strategies to enhance prosthetists' ability to use outcome measures are needed to facilitate their adoption in routine practice. Objective To assess prosthetists' use of outcome measures and evaluate the effects of training on their confidence administering performance-based measures. Design Cross-sectional and single group pretest-posttest survey Methods Seventy-nine certified prosthetists (mean of 16.0 years of clinical experience) were surveyed about their experiences with 20 standardized outcome measures. Prosthetists were formally trained by the investigators to administer the Timed Up and Go and Amputee Mobility Predictor. Prosthetists’ confidence in administering the Timed Up and Go and Amputee Mobility Predictor was measured before and after training. Results The majority (62%) of prosthetists were classified as non-routine outcome measure users. Confidence administering the TUG and AMP prior to training was low-to-moderate across the study sample. Training significantly (p<0.0001) improved prosthetists' confidence administering both instruments. Conclusion Prosthetists in this study reported limited use of and confidence with standardized outcome measures. Interactive training resulted in a statistically significant increase of prosthetists' confidence in administering the TUG and AMP and may facilitate use of outcome measures in clinical practice.

Objective To determine relationships between pain site(s) and pain intensity/interference in people with lower limb amputations. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Community. Participants Lower limb prosthesis users with unilateral or bilateral amputations (n=1296, mean time since amputation = 14.1 years). Intervention Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Intensity (1-item to assess average pain), PROMIS Pain Interference (4-item short form to assess the consequences of pain in desired activities), and questions that asked participants to rate the extent to which each of the following were a problem: residual limb pain, phantom limb pain, knee pain on the non-amputated side, back pain, and shoulder pain. Results Nearly three-quarters of participants (72.1%) reported problematic pain in one or more of the listed sites. Problematic phantom limb, back, and residual limb pain were reported by 48.1%, 39.2%, and 35.1% of participants, respectively. Knee pain and shoulder pain were less commonly identified as problems (27.9% and 21.7%, respectively). Participants also reported significantly (p<.0001) higher pain interference (T score=54.7, SD=9.0) than the normative sample based on the U.S. population (T score=50.0, SD=10.0). Participants with lower limb amputations rated their pain intensity on average at 3.3 (SD=2.4) on a 0–10 scale. Pain interference (rho=.564, p<.0001) and intensity (rho=.603, p<.0001) were positively and significantly correlated with number of pain sites reported. Conclusion Problematic pain symptoms, especially residual limb, phantom limb, and back pain, affect the majority of prosthetic limb users and have the potential to greatly restrict participation in life activities.

No abstract