The Lower-Limb Tasks Questionnaire: An Assessment of Validity, Reliability, Responsiveness, and Minimal Important Differences

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 88, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 993-1001

  McNair, Peter J ^a   Prapavessis, Harry ^b   Collier, Jill ^a   Bassett, Sandra ^a   Bryant, Adam ^c   Larmer, Peter ^a  

^a AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Leg injuries; Questionnaires; Rehabilitation; Reliability and validity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; BLAND ALTMAN PLOT; CONCURRENT VALIDITY; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTENT VALIDITY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FACTOR VALIDITY; GUYATT RESPONSIVENESS STATISTIC; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; LEG INJURY; LEG MOVEMENT; LOWER LIMB TASKS QUESTIONNAIRE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MINIMUM IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE; PRIVATE PRACTICE; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECREATION; RELIABILITY; RESPONSE TIME; STANDARD RESPONSE MEAN; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VALIDATION PROCESS; VALIDITY; WORKLOAD;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LEG; LEG INJURIES; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 34547198383     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.05.008     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Wright J., and Young N. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 50 (1997) 239-246
2. Deyo R. Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 69 (1988) 1044-1053
3. Lysholm J., and Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10 (1982) 150-154
4. Binkley J., Stratford P., Lott S., and Riddle D. The lower extremity functional scale: scale development, measurement properties and clinical application. Phys Ther 79 (1999) 371-383
5. Barber-Westin S., Noyes F., and McCloskey J. Rigorous statistical reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing of the Cincinnati knee rating system in 350 subjects with uninjured, injured, or anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med 27 (1999) 402-416
6. World Health Organization. WHODAS II: Disability Assessment Schedule. Training manual: a guide to Administration (2000), WHO, Geneva. http://www.who.int/icidh/whodas/training_man.pdf Available at: http://www.who.int/icidh/whodas/training_man.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2007
7. Hudak P.L., Amadio P.C., Bombardier C., and The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). Am J Ind Med 29 (1996) 602-608
8. Kitaoka H., Alexander I., Adelaar R., Nunley J.A., Myerson M.S., and Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle 15 (1994) 349-353
9. Ware Jr. J.E., and Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30 (1992) 473-483
10. Chatman A., Hyams S., Neel J., et al. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther 77 (1997) 820-829
11. Wilson R., Gieck J., Gansneder B., Perrin D., Saliba E., and McCue F. Reliability and responsiveness of disablement measures following acute ankle sprains among athletes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 27 (1998) 348-355
12. Duckworth M. Outcome measurement selection and typology. Physiotherapy 85 (1999) 21-27
13. Fries J. Toward an understanding of patient outcome measurement. Arthritis Rheum 26 (1983) 697-704
14. Griffin S., Kinmonth A., Veltman M., Gillard S., Grant J., and Stewart M. Effect on health-related outcomes of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners: a systematic review of trials. Ann Fam Med 2 (2004) 595-608
15. Bland J., and Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurements. Lancet 8 (1986) 307-310
16. Hopkins W. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30 (2000) 1-15
17. Muller R., and Buttner P. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Statist Med 13 (1994) 2465-2476
18. Kazis L., Anderson J., and Meenan R. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27 (1989) S178-S188
19. Liang M., Fossel A., and Larson M. Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 7 (1990) 632-642
20. Guyatt G., Walter S., and Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 40 (1987) 171-178
21. Wyrwich K., Tierney W., and Wolinsky F. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52 (1999) 861-873
22. Fleiss J. The design and analysis of clinical experiments (1986), John Wiley, New York
23. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (1988), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillside
24. Eton D., Cella D., Yost K., et al. A combination of distribution and anchor based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 898-910
25. Farrar J., Young J., LaMoreaux L., Werth J., and Poole R. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94 (2001) 149-158
26. Fritz J., and Wainner R. Examining diagnostic tests. Phys Ther 81 (2001) 1546-1564