Advertisement

Development and Psychometric Validation of Capacity Assessment of Prosthetic Performance for the Upper Limb (CAPPFUL)

      Abstract

      Objectives

      (1) To develop a performance-based measure for adult upper limb (UL) prosthetic functioning through broad (ie, overall performance) and functional domain-specific (eg, control skills) assessment of commonplace activities; (2) to conduct initial psychometric evaluation of the Capacity Assessment of Prosthetic Performance for the Upper Limb (CAPPFUL).

      Design

      Internal consistency of CAPPFUL and interrater reliability for task, functional domain, and full-scale (sub)scores among 3 independent raters were estimated. Known-group validity was examined comparing scores by amputation level. Convergent validity was assessed between CAPPFUL and 2 hand dexterity or function tests; discriminant validity was assessed against self-reported disability.

      Setting

      Six prosthetic rehabilitation centers across the United States.

      Participants

      Subjects (N=60) with UL amputation using a prosthesis.

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Not applicable.

      Results

      Interrater reliability was excellent for scoring on the task, domain, and full-scale scores (intraclass correlation coefficients=.88-.99). Internal consistency was good (α=.79-.82). Generally, subjects with higher UL amputation levels scored lower (worse) than subjects with lower UL amputation levels. CAPPFUL demonstrated strong correlations with measures of hand dexterity or functioning (rs=−.58 to .72) and moderate correlation with self-reported disability (r=−.35).

      Conclusions

      CAPPFUL was designed as a versatile, low-burden measure of prosthesis performance for any UL functional prosthetic device type and any UL amputation level. CAPPFUL assesses overall performance and 5 functional performance domains during completion of 11 tasks that require movement in all planes while manipulating everyday objects requiring multiple grasp patterns. Psychometric evaluation indicates good interrater reliability, internal consistency, known-group validity, and convergent and discriminant validity.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      AM-ULA (Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputees), BBT (Box and Block Test), CAPPFUL (Capacity Assessment of Prosthetic Performance for the Upper Limb), DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient), ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health), JTHF (Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test), UL (upper limb), WHO (World Health Organization)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Biddiss E.
        • Chau T.
        The roles of predisposing characteristics, established need, and enabling resources on upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2: 71-84
        • Biddiss E.
        • Chau T.
        Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007; 31: 236-257
        • Biddiss E.
        • Chau T.
        Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 86: 977-987
        • Cordella F.
        • Ciancio A.
        • Sacchetti R.
        • et al.
        Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users.
        Front Neurosci. 2016; 10: 209
        • Nimhurchadha S.
        • Gallagher P.
        • MacLachlan M.
        • Wegener S.
        Identifying successful outcomes and important factors to consider in upper limb amputation rehabilitation: an international web-based Delphi survey.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2013; 35: 1726-1733
        • Wright V.
        Prosthetic outcome measures for use with upper limb amputees: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, 1970 to 2009.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2009; 21: P3-P63
        • Lindner H.
        • Nätterlund B.
        • Hermansson L.
        Upper limb prosthetic outcome measures: review and content comparison based on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010; 34: 109-128
        • Resnik L.
        • Borgia M.
        Reliability and validity of outcome measures for upper limb amputation.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2012; 24: 192-201
        • Miller L.
        • Swanson S.
        Summary and recommendations of the Academy’s state of the science conference on upper limb prosthetic outcome measures.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2009; 21: P83-P89
        • Hill W.
        • Kyberd P.
        • Norling H.L.
        • Hubbard S.
        • Stavdahl Ø.
        • Swanson S.
        Upper limb prosthetic outcome measures (ULPOM): a working group and their findings.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2009; 21: P69-P82
        • Resnik L.
        • Meucci M.
        • Lieberman-Klinger S.
        • et al.
        Advanced upper limb prosthetic devices: implications for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: 710-717
        • World Health Organization
        ICIDH-2: International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).
        World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland2001
        • Wright F.V.
        Evidence note: upper-limb prosthetic outcome measures.
        Acad Today. 2013; 9: 1
        • Resnik L.
        • Adams L.
        • Borgia M.
        • et al.
        Development and evaluation of the activities measure for upper limb amputees.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 488-494.e4
        • Gustafson D.H.
        • Shukla R.K.
        • Delbecq A.
        • Walster G.W.
        A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups.
        Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1973; 9: 280-291
        • Saaty T.L.
        • Vargas L.G.
        Criteria for evaluating group decision-making methods.
        in: Decision making with the analytic network process. Springer, Boston, MA2013: 295-318
        • Bongers R.M.
        • Kyberd P.J.
        • Bouwsema H.
        • Kenney L.P.
        • Piettenburg D.H.
        • Van der Sluis C.K.
        Bernstein’s levels of construction of movements applied to upper limb prosthetics.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2012; 24: 67
        • Metzger A.J.
        • Dromerick A.W.
        • Holley R.J.
        • Lum P.S.
        Characterization of compensatory trunk movements during prosthetic upper limb reaching tasks.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: 2029-2034
        • Mathiowetz V.
        • Volland G.
        • Kashman N.
        • Weber K.
        Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity.
        Am J Occup Ther. 1985; 39: 386-391
        • Jebsen R.H.
        • Taylor N.
        • Trieschmann R.
        • Trotter M.
        • Howard L.
        An objective and standardized test of hand function.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969; 50: 311-319
        • Lynch K.
        • Bridle M.
        Validity of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test in predicting activities of daily living.
        Occup Ther J Res. 1989; 9: 316-318
        • Hudak P.
        • Amadio P.
        • Bombardier C.
        • et al.
        Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head).
        Am J Ind Med. 1996; 29: 602-608
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Katz J.N.
        • Fossel A.H.
        • Wright J.G.
        • Tarasuk V.
        • Bombardier C.
        Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity.
        J Hand Ther. 2001; 14: 128-146
        • Cicchetti D.V.
        Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.
        Psychol Assess. 1994; 6: 284
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
        Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ1988
        • Kline P.
        Handbook of psychological testing.
        Routledge, New York2013
        • Peterson R.A.
        A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.
        J Consum Res. 1994; 21: 381-391
        • Rosenthal J.A.
        Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size.
        J Soc Serv Res. 1996; 21: 37-59
        • Davidson J.
        A comparison of upper limb amputees and patients with upper limb injuries using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH).
        Disabil Rehabil. 2004; 26: 917-923
        • Lin K.
        • Chuang L.
        • Wu C.
        • Hsieh Y.
        • Chang W.
        Responsiveness and validity of three dexterous function measures in stroke rehabilitation.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010; 47: 563-571
        • Rosenthal R.
        • Rosnow R.L.
        Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis.
        McGraw-Hill, New York1991