Measurement of functional outcome with individuals who use upper extremity prosthetic devices: Current and future directions

Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 46-56

  Wright, F Virginia ^a  

^a University of Toronto   (Canada)

Author keywords

Arm prosthesis; Hand function; Outcome measurement; Pediatrics; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749440429     PISSN: 10408800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00008526-200604000-00006     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (84)

1. World Health Organization (WHO). ICIDH-2: International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICIDH). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
2. Stucki G, Ewert T, Cieza A. Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:628-634.
3. Baxter P. ICF: health vs disease. Dev Med Child Neurol 2004;46:291-297.
4. Hermann KM, Reese CS. Relationships among selected measures of impairment, functional limitation, and disability in patients with cervical spine disorders. Phys Ther 2001;81:903-914.
5. Rentsch HP, Bucher P, Nyffeler ID, et al. The implementation of the 'International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health' (ICF) in a daily practice of neurorehabilitation: an interdisciplinary project at the Kantonsspital of Lucerne, Switzerland. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:411-421.
6. Stucki G. International classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF): a promising framework and classification for rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:733-740.
7. Fuhrer MJ. Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:528-535.
8. Rust KL, Smith RO. Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes. A review and analysis of instruments. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:780-793.
9. Atkins DJ, Heard DCY, Donovan WH. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot 1996;8:2-11.
10. Jutai J, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology assessment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:294-302.
11. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford PW, Mayo NE. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures, 2nd ed. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Physiotherapy Association and BC Decker Inc; 2002.
12. May L. The challenge of measuring change: responsiveness of outcome measurements. Can J Rehabil 1995;10:15-24.
13. Hermansson LM, Fisher AG, Bernspang B, Eliasson A-C. Assessment of capacity for myoelectric control: a new Rasch-built measure of prosthetic hand control. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:166-171.
14. Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Eliasson A-C. Development of the assisting hand assessment: a Rasch-built measure intended for children with unilateral upper limb impairments. Scand J Occup Ther 2003;10:16-26.
15. Wright FV, Hubbard S, Jutai J, Naumann S. Development and reliability testing of a new functional status questionnaire for children who use upper extremity prostheses. J Hand Ther 2001;14:91-104.
16. Wright FV, Hubbard S, Jutai J, Naumann S. Evaluation of the validity of the Prosthetic Upper Extremity Functional Index (PUFI). Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:518-527.
17. Bagley A. The unilateral below elbow test (abstract). Dev Med Child Neurol 2004;46:33-44.
18. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C, and the Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). Am J Industr Med 1996;29:602-608.
19. Sanderson ER, Scott RN. UNB test of prosthetic function: a test for unilateral amputees (test manual). Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, University of New Brunswick; 1985.
20. Stanton MP, Gresham GE, Dittmar SS. Relationship among measures of disease, general health, and functional status. In: Dittmar, SS, Gresham GE, eds. Functional Assessment and Outcome Measures for the Rehabilitation Professional. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 1997:31-36.
21. Pruitt SD, Varni J, Setoguchi Y. Functional status in children with limb deficiency: development and initial validation of an outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:1233-1238.
22. Pruitt SD, Varni JW, Seid M, Setoguchi Y. Functional status in limb deficiency: development of an outcome measure for preschool children. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:405-411.
23. Pruitt SD, Seid M, Varni JW, Setoguchi Y. Toddlers with limb deficiency: conceptual basis and initial application of a functional status outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:819-824.
24. Bray K, Fisher AG, Duran L. The validity of adding new tasks to the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Am J Occup Ther 2001;55:409-415.
25. Matheson LN, Kaskutas VK, Nada D. Development and construct validation of the Hand Function Sort. J Occup Rehabil 2001;11:75-86.
26. Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg 1998;23A:575-587.
27. Davidson J. A comparison of upper limb amputees and patients with upper limb injuries using the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). Disabil Rehabil 2004;26:917-923.
28. Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RD, et al. An objective and standardized test of function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1969;50:311-319.
29. Tiffin J, Asher E. The Purdue Pegboard: norms and studies of reliability and validity. J Appl Psych 1948;32:234-247.
30. Light CM, Chappell PH, Kyberd PJ. Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: normative data, reliability, and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:776-783.
31. Arnould C, Penta M, Renders A, Thonnard JL. ABILHAND-Kids: a measure of manual ability in children with cerebral palsy. Neurology 2004;63:1045-1052.
32. Buffart LM, Pesch-Battenburg JMFB, Heijningen VG, et al. Functional status of children with a congenital upper limb reduction deficiency. Myoelectric Controls (MEC) Symposium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, August 17-19, 2005.
33. DeMatteo C, Law M, Russell D, et al. The reliability and validity of the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 1993;13:1-18.
34. Bourke-Taylor H. Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function: construct validity and correlation with the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Dev Med Child Neurol 2003;45:92-96.
35. Kopp B, Kunkel A, Flor H, et al. The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:615-620.
36. Young NL, Williams JI, Yoshida KK, et al. The context of measuring disability: does it matter whether capability or performance is measured? J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1097-1101.
37. Thornby MA, Krebs DE. Bimanual skill development in pediatric below-elbow amputation: a multi-centre, cross-sectional study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992;73:697-702.
38. Fisher AG. Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Fort Collins: Three Star Press; 1999.
39. Haley S, Coster WJ, Ludlow LH, et al. Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI). Version 1.0. Development, Standardization and Administration Manual. Boston: New England Medical Center Hospitals, Inc; 1992.
40. Daltroy LH, Liang MH, Fossel AH, et al. The POSNA pediatric musculoskeletal functional health questionnaire: report of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J Pediatr Orthop 1998;18:561-571.
41. Coster W, Deeney T, Haltiwanger J, Haley S. School Function Assessment. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace and Company (Therapy Skill Builders); 1998.
42. Msall M, DiGaudio K, Duffy L, et al. WeeFIM: normative sample of an instrument for tracking functional independence in children. Clin Pediatr 1994;33:431-438.
43. James MA, Bagley A. Impact of prostheses on outcomes for children with unilateral congenital below elbow deficiency. Paper presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2005 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, February 23-27, 2005.
44. Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS. Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Version 4.0 Generic Core Scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care 2001;39:800-812.
45. Edelstein JE, Berger N. Performance comparison among children fitted with myoelectric and body-powered hands. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:376-380.
46. Weaver SA, Lange LA, Vogts VM. Comparison of myoelectric and conventional prostheses for adolescent amputees. Am J Occup Ther 1988;42:87-91.
47. Legro MW, Rieher GD, Smith DG, et al. Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:931-938.
48. Gauthier-Gagnon C, Grise M-C. Prosthetic profile of the amputee questionnaire: validity and reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;75:1309-1314.
49. Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O'reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcomes instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003;27:191-206.
50. Hagberg K, Branemark O, Hagg O. Questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA): initial validity and reliability of a new measure. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004;41:695-705.
51. Hart DL. Orthotics and Prosthetics National Outcomes Tool (OPOT): initial reliability and validity assessment for lower extremity prosthetics. J Prosthet Orthot 1999;11:101-111.
52. Devlin M, Pauley T, Head K, Garfinkel S. Houghton Scale of prosthetic use in people with lower extremity amputations: reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:1339-1344.
53. Selles RW, Janssens PJ, Jongenengel CD, Bussmann JB. A randomized controlled trial comparing functional outcome and cost efficiency of a total surface-bearing socket versus a conventional patellar tendon-bearing socket in transtibial amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:154-161.
54. Desmond DM, MacLachlan M. Factor structure of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:506-513.
55. Lake C. Effects of prosthetic training on upper-extremity prosthesis use. J Prosthet Orthot 1997;9:3-9.
56. Datta D, Selvarajah K, Davey N. Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency - acquired and congenital. Clin Rehabil 2004;18:172-177.
57. Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles and their abilities. J Hand Ther 2002;15:62-70.
58. Fraser CM. An evaluation of the use made of cosmetic and functional prostheses by unilateral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 1998;22:216-223.
59. Muecke L, Shekar S, Dwyer D, et al. Functional screening of lower-limb amputees: a role in predicting rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992;73:851-858.
60. Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothof JW, et al. Physical, mental, and social predictors of functional outcome in unilateral lower-limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:803-811.
61. Streppel KRM, de Vries J, van Harten WH. Functional status and prosthesis use in amputees, measured with the Prosthetic Profile of the Amputee (PPA) and the short version of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP68). Int J Rehabil Res 2001;24:251-256.
62. Whyte A, Carroll LJ. The relationship between catastrophizing and disability in amputees experiencing phantom pain. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26:649-654.
63. Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. The Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) and quality of life in people with lower-limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:730-736.
64. Dittmar S. Selection and administration of functional assessment and rehabilitation outcome measures. In: Dittmar S, Gresham GE, eds. Functional Assessment and Outcome Measures for the Rehabilitation Professional. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 1997:11-15.
65. Lexell JE, Downham DY. How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:719-723.
66. Stratford P, Spadoni G, Kennedy D, et al. Seven points to consider when investigating a measure's ability to detect change. Physiother Can 2002;54:16-24.
67. Stratford PW, Spadoni GF. Assessing improvement in patients who report small limitations in functional status on condition-specific measures. Physiother Can 2005;57:234-241.
68. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28:406-412.
69. Russell DJ, Avery LM, Rosenbaum PL, et al. Improved scaling of the Gross Motor Function Measure for children with cerebral palsy: evidence of reliability and validity. Phys Ther 2000;80:873-885.
70. Carswell A, McColl MA, Baptiste S, et al. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: a research and clinical literature review. Can J Occup Ther 2004;1:210-222.
71. King GA, McDougall J, Palisano RJ, et al. Goal Attainment Scaling: its use in evaluating pediatric therapy programs. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 1999;15:31-52.
72. Kiresuk TJ, Smith A, Cardillo JE. Goal Attainment Scaling: Applications, Theory and Measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1994.
73. Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, et al. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapy Publications. 3rd ed. Ottawa, Canada; 1998.
74. Wressle E, Eeg-Olofsson AM, Marcusson J, Henricksson C. Improved client participation in the rehabilitation process using a client-centred goal formulation structure. J Rehabil Med 2002;34:5-11.
75. Rushton PW, Miller WC. Goal attainment scaling in the rehabilitation of patients with lower-extremity amputations: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:771-775.
76. Mahoney FI, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J 1965;14:56-61.
77. Demers L, Desrosiers J, Ska B, et al. Assembling a toolkit to measure geriatric rehabilitation outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:460-472.
78. Burger H, Brezovar D, Marincek C. Comparison of clinical test and questionnaires for the evaluation of upper limb prosthetic use in children. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26:911-916.
79. Lambregts SAM, Doornbosch F, Roebroeck ME, et al. Functional outcome of adolescents and young adults with congenital upper limb reduction deficiency. Myoelectric Controls (MEC) Symposium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, August 17-19, 2005.
80. Wright V. How do changes in impairment, activity and participation relate to each other? Evaluation using the model of Botulinum Toxin Type A injections in children with cerebral palsy. [Thesis] Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University, 2005.
81. Blenkiron EL. Uptake of standardised hand assessments in rheumatology: why is it so low? Brit J Occup Ther 2005;68:148-157.
82. Athale N, Sturley A, Skoczen S, et al. A web-compatible instrument for measuring self-reported disease activity in arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004;31:223-228.
83. Schwartz B. The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. Paper-back ed. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc; 2005.
84. Russell D, Rosenbaum P, Cadman D, et al. The Gross Motor Function Measure: a means to evaluate the effects of physical therapy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1989;31:341-352.