Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 88, Issue 8 , Pages 993-1001 , August 2007

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

  • Peter J. McNair, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Health and Rehabilitation Research Centre, Division of Rehabilitation and Occupation Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Peter J. McNair, PhD, Health and Rehabilitation Research Centre, Div of Rehabilitation and Occupation Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, New Zealand
    • ,
  • Harry Prapavessis, PhD

      Affiliations

    • School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada
    • ,
  • Jill Collier, MHSc

      Affiliations

    • Health and Rehabilitation Research Centre, Division of Rehabilitation and Occupation Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
    • ,
  • Sandra Bassett, PhD

      Affiliations

    • School of Physiotherapy, Division of Rehabilitation and Occupation Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
    • ,
  • Adam Bryant, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Australia.
    • ,
  • Peter Larmer, MHSc

      Affiliations

    • School of Physiotherapy, Division of Rehabilitation and Occupation Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

References 

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

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(07)00351-6

doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.05.008

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 88, Issue 8 , Pages 993-1001 , August 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution