ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Descriptive & Survey Study

Authors

Adel Gomnam   M. (1)
Kamali   M. (*)
Mobaraki   H. (1)
Saeedi   H. (2)






(*) Rehabilitation Management Department, Rehabilitation Faculty, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(1) Rehabilitation Management Department, Rehabilitation Faculty, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(2) Orthosis & Prosthesis Department, Rehabilitation Faculty, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Rehabilitation Faculty, Madad Karan Street, Shahid Shah Nazari Street, Madar Square, Mirdamad Boulevard, Tehran, Iran
Phone: +982122221577
Fax: +982122220946
kamali@mkamali.com

Article History

Received:   January  7, 2016
Accepted:   March 9, 2016
ePublished:   April 3, 2016

ABSTRACT

Aims Post-amputation rehabilitation can improve the quality of life. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire (PEQ) has been designed to evaluate the prosthetic functioning and major aspects of the quality of life in persons with lower-limb amputations. The aim of this study was to translate the questionnaire into Persian and evaluate validity and reliability of the translation.
Instrument & Methods The study was done qualitatively and quantitatively. Firstly, prosthesis evaluation questionnaire was translated into Persian and localized. To evaluate formal validity, the questionnaire was completed by 17 lower-limb amputees referred to Kowsar orthotics and prosthesis center. Its content validity was evaluated by 15 prosthesis experts. Using test-retest method, the questionnaire was completed by 70 amputees referred to the center in 2015. The amputees were selected by simple non-probability method. The questionnaire was completed by 22 of the amputees after 2 weeks, again. Data was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha, relative repetition coefficient, and impact score.
Findings The impact score of all the items of the questionnaire was more than 1.5 and favorable. Excluding formal scale and relative repetition coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha was more than the favorable level (0.7) in other scales.
Conclusion Validity and reliability of the Persian version of prosthesis evaluation questionnaire are favorable; and the version can be used to assess prosthesis and major aspects of the quality of life in the Iranian amputees.

Keywords: Reproducibility of Results , Amputation, Prostheses and Implants , Iran,

CITATION LINKS

[1]Bowker JH. Atlas of limb prosthetics: Surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles. 2nd edition. Mosby: Mosby-Year Book; 1992.
[2]Devereux PG, Bullock CC, Bargmann-Losche J, Kyriakou M. Maintaining support in people with paralysis: What works?. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(10):1360-76.
[3]Lusardi MM, Jorge M, Nielsen CC. Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation. 3rd edition. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.
[4]Zargar M, Araghizadeh H, Soroush MR, Khaji A. Iranian casualties during the eight years of Iraq-Iran conflict. Rev Saude Publica. 2007;41(6):1065-6.
[5]Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd edition. Chichester: John Wiley; 2007.
[6]Hope ML, Page AC, Hooke GR. The value of adding the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire to outcome assessments of psychiatric inpatients with mood and affective disorders. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(5):647-55.
[7]Ostlie K, Franklin RJ, Skjeldal OH, Skrondal A, Magnus P.. Musculoskeletal pain and overuse syndromes in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(12):1967-73.
[8]Williams LH, Miller DR, Fincke G, Lafrance JP, Etzioni R, Maynard C, et al. Depression and incident lower limb amputations in veterans with diabetes. J Diabetes Complicat. 2011;25(3):175-82.
[9]Pernot HF1, Winnubst GM, Cluitmans JJ, De Witte LP. Amputees in limburg: Incidence, morbidity and mortality, prosthetic supply, care utilisation and functional level after one year. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24(2):90-6.
[10]Prosthetics research study (PRS) [Internet]. Washington: Prosthetics research study; c2014-10 [Cited 2009, 12 February]. Available from: http://www.prs-research.org/htmPages/PEQ.html.
[11]Feinstein AR, Josephy BR, Wells CK. Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105(3):413-20.
[12]Keith RA. Functional assessment measures in medical rehabilitation: Current status. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 1984;65(2):74-8.
[13]Legro MW, Reiber GD, Smith DG, del Aguila M, Larsen J, Boone D. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(8):931-8.
[14]Condie E, Scott H, Treweek S. Lower limb prosthetic outcome measures: a review of the literature 1995 to 2005. J Prosthet Orthot. 2006;18(6):13-45.
[15]Hawkins AT, Henry AJ, Crandell DM, Nguyen LL. A systematic review of functional and quality of life assessment after major lower extremity amputation. Ann Vasc Surg. 2014;28(3):763-780.
[16]Boone DA, Coleman KL. Use of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire (PEQ). J Prosthet Orthot. 2006;18(6):68-79.
[17]Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91.
[18]Tobimatsu Y, Iwaya T, Tamura T. Prosthesis-related QOL of the people with amputation in Japan. Hong Kong: 11th World Congress of the International Society for Prosthetics & Orthotics; 2004, August 1–6. p. 167.
[19]Chu CK, Wong MS. Comparison of prosthetic outcomes between adolescent transtibial and transfemoral amputees after Sichuan earthquake using Step Activity Monitor and Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016;40(1):58-64.
[20]Ferriero G, Dughi D, Orlandini D, Moscato T, Nicita D, Franchignoni F. 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. Eura Medicophys. 2005;41(1):1-6.
[21]Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Ferriero G, Orlandini D, Amoresano A, Perucca L. Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: Rasch analysis of the mobility section of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39(2):138-44.
[22]Benavent JV, Igual C, Mora E, Antonio R, Tenias JM. Cross-cultural validation of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire in vascular amputees fitted with prostheses in Spain. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015;1-7.
[23]Day SJ, Buis A. Cross cultural equivalence testing of the Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) for an Arabic speaking population. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2012;36(2):173-80.
[24]Safer VB, Yavuzer G, Demir SO, Yanikoglu I, Guneri FD. The prosthesis evaluation questionnaire: Reliability and cross-validation of the Turkish version. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(6):1677-80.
[25]Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplège A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The IQOLA project approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):913-23.
[26]Cohen L, Manion L, Morison K. Research Methods in Education. 7th edition. London: Routledge; 2011.
[27]de Vet HC, Terwee C, Mokkink L, Knol D. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
[28]Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231-40.
[29]Santos JRA. Cronbach's alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Ext. 1999;37(2):1-5.
[30]Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford P, Mayo N. How to choose outcomes relevant to the client and the rehabilitation program. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002. p. 6-15.
[31]Montazeri A, Goshtasebi A, Vahdaninia M, Gandek B. The short form health survey (SF-36): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(3):875-82.