The Locomotor Capabilities Index; validity and reliability of the Swedish version in adults with lower limb amputation

Larsson, Brita; Johannesson, Anton; Andersson, Ingemar; Atroshi, Isam

doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-44

Cited by 51 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The LCI is a component of the measurement tool called the Prosthetic Profile of the Amputee and is designed as a self-report measure of prosthetic mobility that evaluates ambulatory abilities with or without different levels of ambulation aides and assistance [22][23][24][25]. The LCI consists of 14 activity-based items, ranging from walking in the house to carrying an object, which are divided into two subscales: Basic Abilities and Advanced Abilities [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet

Gailey

Gaunaurd

Agrawal

et al. 2012

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Weand five without PVD, completed testing. Subjects were tested at baseline and after receiving training with their existing prosthesis and with the study socket and four prosthetic feet, i.e., SACH (solid ankle cushion heel), SAFE (stationary attachment flexible endoskeletal), Talux, and Proprio feet, over 8 to 10 weeks. Training was administered between testing sessions. No differences were detected by the PEQ-13, LCI, 6MWT, or SAM following training and after fitting with test feet. The AMPPRO demonstrated differences following training with the existing prosthesis in the PVD group and between selected feet from baseline testing (p

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet

Gailey

Gaunaurd

Agrawal

et al. 2012

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This procedure is compatible with the guidelines for translation and adaptation of instruments published by the World Health Organization (WHO), 13 and several studies have used this method successfully, with minor modifications. 6,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] The procedure used in the present study was a modified version of these guidelines (Figure 1). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several self-report instruments have been developed for the O&P field, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] but only two are available in Swedish, and their use is limited to clients with prosthesis. 4,6 No Swedish self-report instruments are available for assessing the outcome in clients using orthoses, orthopaedic shoes, or shoe insoles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Translation and Linguistic Validation of the Swedish Version of Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey

Jarl¹,

Hermansson

2009

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an increasing need for outcome measures in the orthotic and prosthetic field and specifically a lack of outcome measures in Swedish. The Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS) was developed in the USA for assessment of the outcome of orthotic and prosthetic interventions, and could potentially also be used for shoe insoles and orthopaedic shoes. The aims of this study were to translate OPUS into Swedish and test the translated version's linguistic validity in a Swedish context. The Orthotic and Prosthetic Users' Survey was translated into Swedish and back-translated into English, following a modified version of the World Health Organization guidelines. After revision of the Swedish version, 39 Swedish clients (12 men, 27 women) answered the OPUS questionnaires and were systematically debriefed afterwards. Most items were understood correctly by the respondents, but some words and expressions had to be changed to avoid misunderstandings or unintended interpretations. The resulting Swedish version of OPUS, OPUS-Swe, showed acceptable linguistic validity and has potential for use in both clinical practice and scientific settings. Nevertheless, before OPUS-Swe can be fully implemented, its psychometric properties need to be evaluated.

show abstract

“…Therefore, the maximum score on each subscale can only be 21. 3,4 It is hoped the authors can clarify this error.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comment on

2010

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MADAM: It was with much interest I read the recent publication by Gordon and colleagues 1 given the potential of this work to influence the provision of interim prosthetic services in New South Wales, Australia and abroad.While it was laudable of the investigators to compare different models of service delivery in terms of cost, satisfaction and functional outcomes, there are a number of limitations that reduce confidence in the authors' conclusion that the provision of an interim prosthetic service using a contracted private company was more expensive and resulted in lower satisfaction compared to an 'in-house' service.Satisfaction with the prosthesis (SATPRO) score for the private model seems unusually low (49.91 + 12.13) compared to another investigation which reported a mean score of 73.1 + 20.3 for a similar population. 2 The SATPRO tool comprises 15 questions, each measured on a four-point scale, which raises the question of whether the result for the private model were reported out of 60, without expressing the result out of 100 as is normally the case. 2 Personal communication with the authors on the 10th and 21st May 2010 confirmed this error. Correction of this error would bring the private model results in line with a previous investigation 2 and find satisfaction with the prosthesis to be comparable between the two experimental groups.It was disappointing that a breakdown of the SATPRO data by question were not reported. The SATPRO instrument offers a great deal of information, such as whether repairs or adjustments were carried out in a reasonable time (Q.8), which would have helped inform the discussion and avoid the need for speculation which biased the discussion.Given that the authors reported using the Locomotor Capability Index (LCI) it was surprising that the LCI basic score exceeded 21 for both the public and private model. The LCI consists of 14 items broken into two subscales (basic and advanced). Each subscale includes seven items graded on a 4-point scale from 0 (not able to) to 3 (yes, independently). Therefore, the maximum score on each subscale can only be 21. 3,4 It is hoped the authors can clarify this error.The Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF) is a complex instrument to administer requiring the rater to determine the level of autonomy based on synthesis of information obtained by talking with the participant/family, observing the participant in their environment and evaluating the extent to which physical or social resources are available to compensate for the disability. 5 When preceded with a 3-hour training session, good interrater reliability has been observed. 5 In reporting results for SMAF, authors should document the training and experience of assessors and indicate whether more than one rater was involved in doing the assessments.While the authors conservative interpretation of the SMAF scores in the conclusion and abstract was appreciated, it was concerning to see elsewhere in the article the suggestion that greater function was observed with clients managed...

show abstract

The Locomotor Capabilities Index; validity and reliability of the Swedish version in adults with lower limb amputation

Abstract: Background: The Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI) is a validated measure of lower-limb amputees' ability to perform activities with prosthesis. We have developed the LCI Swedish version and evaluated its validity and reliability.

Cited by 51 publications

References 29 publications

Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet

Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet

Translation and Linguistic Validation of the Swedish Version of Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey

Comment on

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About