Advertisement

Measuring Satisfaction With Upper Limb Prostheses: Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey Revision That Includes Issues of Concern to Women

      Abstract

      Objective

      To (1) modify the Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey (OPUS) Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) instrument to incorporate issues of concern to women and (2) evaluate measure's structural and concurrent validity and reliability in persons with upper limb amputation (ULA).

      Design

      Cross-sectional survey study with retest after 2 weeks. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Rasch analyses were used to select items and examine differential item functioning, range of coverage, and person and item reliability. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients. Pearson correlations were used to estimate associations with other prosthesis satisfaction measures.

      Setting

      Telephone administered survey.

      Participants

      Convenience sample of 468 participants in the US (N=468; 19.9% women) with ULA, including a 50-person retest subsample (4% female).

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Modified OPUS CSD.

      Results

      EFA suggested 3 subscales: Comfort, Appearance, and Utility. CFA found acceptable model fit. After dropping items with poor fit and high pairwise correlations in Rasch partial credit models, CFA model fit indices were acceptable (comparative fit index=0.959, Tucker-Lewis Index=0.954, root mean square error of approximation=0.082). Rasch person reliability was 0.62 (Utility), 0.77 (Appearance), and 0.82 (Comfort). Cronbach α was 0.81, 87, and 0.71 for Comfort and Appearance, and Utility subscales, respectively. Correlations between the modified CSD, the original CSD, and the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Satisfaction Scale were 0.54-0.94.

      Conclusions

      We identified 3 subscales: Comfort (6 items), Appearance (8 items), and Utility (4 items) with 7 new items identified as important to women. The subscales demonstrate evidence of sound concurrent structural and test-retest reliability and concurrent validity. The Appearance and Comfort subscales have good reliability for group-level use in clinical and research applications, whereas the Utility subscale had poor to fair person reliability but excellent item reliability.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      CFA (confirmatory factor analysis), CFI (comparative fit index), CSD (Client Satisfaction with Devices), DIF (differential item functioning), EFA (exploratory factor analysis), ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient), MDC (minimal detectable change), OPUS (Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey), RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation), TAPES (Trinity Amputee Prosthetic Evaluation Scale), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index), ULA (upper limb amputation), ULP (upper limb prosthesis)
      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

        • Resnik L
        • Borgia M
        • Cancio J
        • et al.
        Dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb veteran prosthesis users: a normative study.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2022; 44: 2470-2481
        • Jette AM.
        The promise of assistive technology to enhance work participation.
        Phys Ther. 2017; 97: 691-692
        • Postema SG
        • van der Sluis CK
        • Waldenlov K
        Norling Hermansson LM. Body structures and physical complaints in upper limb reduction deficiency: a 24-year follow-up study.
        PLoS One. 2012; 7: e49727
        • Tennent DJ
        • Wenke JC
        • Rivera JC
        • Krueger CA.
        Characterisation and outcomes of upper extremity amputations.
        Injury. 2014; 45: 965-969
        • Resnik L
        • Borgia M
        • Biester S
        • Clark MA.
        Longitudinal study of prosthesis use in veterans with upper limb amputation.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021; 45: 26-35
        • Resnik LJ
        • Borgia ML
        • Clark MA.
        A national survey of prosthesis use in veterans with major upper limb amputation: comparisons by gender.
        PM R. 2020; 12: 1086-1098
        • Biddiss EA
        • Chau TT.
        Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007; 31: 236-257
        • Biddiss EA
        • Chau TT.
        Multivariate prediction of upper limb prosthesis acceptance or rejection.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008; 3: 181-192
        • Raichle KA
        • Hanley MA
        • Molton I
        • et al.
        Prosthesis use in persons with lower- and upper-limb amputation.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008; 45: 961-972
        • Resnik L
        • Borgia M
        • Clark M.
        Function and quality of life of unilateral major upper limb amputees: effect of prosthesis use and type.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 101: 1396-1406
        • Heinemann AW
        • Bode RK
        • O'Reilly C
        Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003; 27: 191-206
        • Heinemann AW
        • Gershon R
        • Fisher WP.
        Development and application of the Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey: applications and opportunities for health care quality improvement.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2006; 18: 6
        • Burger H
        • Franchignoni F
        • Heinemann AW
        • Kotnik S
        • Giordano A.
        Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation.
        J Rehabil Med. 2008; 40: 393-399
        • Sorrentino G
        • Vercelli S
        • Salgovic L
        • Ronconi G
        • Bakhsh HR
        • Ferriero G.
        Psychometric properties of the Client Satisfaction with Device module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a scoping review.
        Int J Rehabil Res. 2021; 44: 193-199
        • Bakhsh H
        • Franchignoni F
        • Bravini E
        • Ferriero G
        • Giordano A
        • Foti C.
        Validation of the Arabic version of the client satisfaction with device module of the orthotics and prosthetics users survey.
        Ann Saudi Med. 2014; 34: 320-327
        • Bravini E
        • Franchignoni F
        • Ferriero G
        • et al.
        Validation of the Italian version of the Client Satisfaction with Device module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey.
        Disabil Health J. 2014; 7: 442-447
        • Jarl G
        • Hermansson LN.
        Translation and linguistic validation of the Swedish version of “Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey” (OPUS). Pre.
        in: sented at: MEC’08: Measuring Success in Upper Limb Prosthetics: University of New Brunswick's Myoelectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium. 2008 (August 13-15Fredericton, Canada)
        • Jarl G
        • Heinemann AW
        • Lindner HY
        Norling Hermansson LM. Cross-cultural validity and differential item functioning of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey with Swedish and United States users of lower-limb prosthesis.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: 1615-1626
        • Hadadi M
        • Ghoseiri K
        • Fardipour S
        • Kashani RV
        • Asadi F
        • Asghari A.
        The Persian version of satisfaction assessment module of Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey.
        Disabil Health J. 2016; 9: 90-99
        • Burger H
        • Giordano A
        • Mlakar M
        • Albensi C
        • Brezovar D
        • Franchignoni F.
        Cross-cultural adaptation and Rasch validation of the Slovene version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS) Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) in upper-limb prosthesis users.
        Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019; 62: 168-173
        • Jarl GM
        • Heinemann AW
        Norling Hermansson LM. Validity evidence for a modified version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012; 7: 469-478
        • 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
        • Resnik L
        • Ekerholm S
        • Borgia M
        • Clark MA.
        A national study of Veterans with major upper limb amputation: survey methods, participants, and summary findings.
        PLoS One. 2019; 14e0213578
        • Levine RE
        • Fowler Jr, FJ
        • Brown JA.
        Role of cognitive testing in the development of the CAHPS Hospital Survey.
        Health Serv Res. 2005; 40: 2037-2056
        • Irwin DE
        • Varni JW
        • Yeatts K
        • DeWalt DA.
        Cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a pediatric item bank: a Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) study.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009; 7: 3
        • Reeve BB
        • Hays RD
        • Bjorner JB
        • et al.
        Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).
        Med Care. 2007; 45: S22-S31
        • Bond TG
        • Fox CM.
        Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences.
        Psychology Press, New York2013
        • Bentler PM.
        Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
        Psychol Bull. 1990; 107: 238-246
        • Kenny D
        • Kaniskan B
        • McCoach D.
        The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom.
        Sociol Methods Res. 2014; 44: 486-507
        • Yen W
        Scaling performance assessments: strategies for managing local item dependence.
        J Educ Meas. 1993; 30: 187-213
        • Tate R.
        A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of responses to test items.
        Appl Psychol Meas. 2003; 27: 159-203
        • Chen W
        • Thissen D.
        Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory.
        J Educ Behav Stat. 1997; 22: 265-289
        • Muthen L
        • Muthen B
        MPlus statistical analysis with latent variables user’s guide. Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles2007
        • Andrich D.
        A property of all random distributions: relationship to the Rasch model distribution.
        Rasch Meas Trans. 2021; 34: 1794-1802
        • Linacre J.
        WINSTEPS® Rasch measurement computer program user’s guide. Winsteps.com, Beaverton2017
        • Zwick R
        • Thayer DT
        • Lewis C.
        An empirical bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis.
        J Educ Meas. 1999; 36: 1-28
        • McGraw KO
        • Wong SP.
        Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.
        Psychol Methods. 1996; 1: 30-46
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
        Lawrence Elrbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ1988
        • Hemphill JF.
        Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients.
        Am Psychol. 2003; 58: 78-80