假肢应用自我报告结果测量的心理评估。

Brian J Hafner, Sara J Morgan, Robert L Askew, Rana Salem
{"title":"假肢应用自我报告结果测量的心理评估。","authors":"Brian J Hafner, Sara J Morgan, Robert L Askew, Rana Salem","doi":"10.1682/JRRD.2015.12.0228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 to 3 d 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50065,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development","volume":"53 6","pages":"797-812"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345485/pdf/nihms787296.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric evaluation of self-report outcome measures for prosthetic applications.\",\"authors\":\"Brian J Hafner, Sara J Morgan, Robert L Askew, Rana Salem\",\"doi\":\"10.1682/JRRD.2015.12.0228\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 to 3 d 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development\",\"volume\":\"53 6\",\"pages\":\"797-812\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345485/pdf/nihms787296.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2015.12.0228\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2015.12.0228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在提供假肢服务和假肢装置的过程中,人们越来越期待对临床结果进行记录。然而,许多适用于临床护理和研究的结果测量方法尚未在假肢使用者身上进行心理测试。本研究旨在确定标准化自我报告工具的重测可靠性、给药方式(MoA)等效性、测量标准误差(SEM)和最小可检测变化(MDC),这些工具可评估对下肢缺失者具有重要意义的结构。假肢使用者(n = 201)根据 MoA(即纸质、电子或混合模式)被随机分配到不同的组别。参与者在2到3天内完成两次调查。调查工具包括假肢使用者活动能力调查表、假肢评估问卷--活动能力分量表、特定活动平衡信心量表、神经系统疾病生活质量--应用认知/一般关注、患者报告结果测量信息系统简介和插座舒适度评分。类内相关系数表明,所有工具都适合用于群体水平的比较,部分工具适合用于个人水平的应用。有几项工具显示出可能存在下限和上限效应。所有工具在不同测量值之间都是等效的。对 SEM 和 MDC 进行了量化,以方便解释结果和变化分数。这些结果可以提高临床医生和研究人员选择、应用和解释假肢使用者所用工具得分的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Psychometric evaluation of self-report outcome measures for prosthetic applications.

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 to 3 d 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.64
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bodies in Motion Chronic Effects of Exposure to High-Intensity Blasts: Results of Tests of Central Auditory Processing Relationship between symptoms and family relationships in Veterans with serious mental illness Pain and psychiatric comorbidities among two groups of Iraq and Afghanistan era Veterans. Effects of cognitive load and prosthetic liner on volitional response times to vibrotactile feedback.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1