Abstract
Objective
To evaluate test-retest reliability and related measurement properties of items developed
to assess best, worst, and average prosthetic socket comfort.
Design
Methodological research to assess test-retest reliability of 4 individual socket comfort
survey items. Socket comfort items were included in a self-report paper survey, which
was administered to participants 2 to 3 days apart.
Setting
General community.
Participants
A minimum convenience sample of participants (N=63) was targeted for this study; 72
lower limb prosthesis users (>1y postamputation) completed the survey and were included
in the final dataset.
Interventions
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measure
The expanded socket comfort score (ESCS) was adapted from the original socket comfort
score (SCS). The original SCS is a single-item self-report instrument developed to
assess a lower limb prosthesis user's current socket comfort. Three additional items
were designed to assess the user's best, worst, and average socket comfort over the
previous 7 days.
Results
Best, worst, and average socket comfort items demonstrated better reliability, as
indicated by higher intraclass correlation coefficients. As such, these items also
exhibited lower measurement error and smaller minimal detectable change values than
the item that measured current socket comfort. However, test-retest coefficients for
all 4 ESCS items were below the level desired for evaluation of within-individual
changes of socket comfort.
Conclusions
Items that assess best, worst, and average comfort provide a more stable measurement
of socket fit than the existing SCS instrument. Although administration of all 4 ESCS
items may provide more comprehensive assessment of a lower limb prosthesis user's
socket fit, administrators should expect variations in scores over time owing to the
variable nature of the underlying construct over time. Future research should examine
whether the ESCS provides an improved overall assessment of socket fit.
Keywords
List of abbreviations:
ESCS (expanded socket comfort score), ICC (intraclass correlation coefficients), SCS (socket comfort score)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 accessOne-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 RehabilitationAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Developing consensus on important factors associated with lower limb prosthetic prescription and use.Disabil Rehabil. 2012; 34: 2085-2094
- Prosthetic socket fit comfort score.Disabil Rehabil. 2003; 25: 1278-1280
- The development and internal consistency of the comprehensive lower limb amputee socket survey in active lower limb amputees.Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018; 43: 80-87
- Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998; 79: 931-938
- Psychometric evaluation of self-report outcome measures for prosthetic applications.J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016; 53: 797-812
- ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research.Qual Life Res. 2013; 22: 1889-1905
- Residual limb fluid volume change and volume accommodation: relationships to activity and self-report outcomes in people with trans-tibial amputation.Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018; 42: 415-427
- Preliminary investigation of residual-limb fluid volume changes within one day.J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49: 1467-1478
- The use of multiple-item scales for pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients.Pain. 1996; 67: 35-40
- Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies.Stat Med. 1998; 17: 101-110
- What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures?.Value Health. 2007; 10 (suppl): S94-105
- Residual limb volume change: systematic review of measurement and management.J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011; 48: 949-986
- A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments.J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 730-735
Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROMIS instrument development and validation scientific standards, version 2.0. Revised May, 2013. Available at: http://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/PROMISStandards_Vers2.0_Final.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2021.
- Construct validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) in adults with lower limb amputation.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98: 277-285
- Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 420-428
- Socket size adjustments in people with transtibial amputation: effects on residual limb fluid volume and limb-socket distance.Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019; 63: 161-171
- Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89: 422-429
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 05, 2021
Accepted:
October 1,
2021
Received in revised form:
August 27,
2021
Received:
July 5,
2021
Footnotes
This research was presented at the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists 44th Annual Meeting and Scientific Symposium; New Orleans, LA; February 14-17, 2018.
This research is supported by the Orthotic and Prosthetic Education and Research Foundation (grant no. 2014-SGA-1), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (National Institutes of Health grant no. HD-065340), and the Department of Education (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research grant no. H133P080006). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Orthotic and Prosthetic Education and Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Education.
Disclosures: none.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.
