Objective performance-based outcome measures (OMs) have the potential to provide unbiased and reproducible assessments of limb function. However, very few of these performance-based OMs have been validated for upper limb (UL) prosthesis users. OMs validated in other clinical populations (eg, neurologic or musculoskeletal conditions) could be used to fill gaps in existing performance-based OMs for UL amputees. Additionally, a joint review might reveal consistent gaps across multiple clinical populations. Therefore, the objective of this review was to systematically characterize prominent measures used in both sets of clinical populations with regard to (1) location of task performance around the body, (2) possible grips employed, (3) bilateral versus unilateral task participation, and (4) details of scoring mechanisms. A systematic literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Medline, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health electronic databases for variations of the following terms: stroke, musculoskeletal dysfunction, amputation, prosthesis, upper limb, outcome, assessments. Articles were included if they described performance-based OMs developed for disabilities of the UL. Results show most tasks were performed with 1 hand in the space directly in front of the participant. The tip, tripod, and cylindrical grips were most commonly used for the specific tasks. Few measures assessed sensation and movement quality. Overall, several limitations in OMs were identified. The solution to these limitations may be to modify and validate existing measures originally developed for other clinical populations as first steps to more aptly measure prosthesis use while more complete assessments for UL prosthesis users are being developed.

Rates of PTSD-smoking co-occurrence remain high. Notable gains have been made in relevant epidemiological and etiological research, although more work is needed in trauma-specific subpopulations. Several promising specialized treatments for comorbid smoking-PTSD have been developed and empirically tested but require replication.

In psychology, researchers are often interested in the predictive classification of individuals. Various models exist for such a purpose, but which model is considered a best practice is conditional on attributes of the data. Under certain conditions, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) has been shown to perform better than other predictive methods, such as logistic regression, multinomial logistic regression, random forests, support-vector machines, and the K-nearest neighbor algorithm. The purpose of this Tutorial is to provide researchers who already have a basic level of statistical training with a general overview of LDA and an example of its implementation and interpretation. Decisions that must be made when conducting an LDA (e.g., prior specification, choice of cross-validation procedures) and methods of evaluating case classification (posterior probability, typicality probability) and overall classification (hit rate, Huberty’s I index) are discussed. LDA for prediction is described from a modern Bayesian perspective, as opposed to its original derivation. A step-by-step example of implementing and interpreting LDA results is provided. All analyses were conducted in R, and the script is provided; the data are available online.

To capture the functional role of reckless and self-destructive behaviors (RSDBs) in posttraumatic stress disorder’s (PTSD) symptomatology, the E2 symptom was added in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. However, the lack of a validated, comprehensive, and clinically useful measure is a significant barrier to the assessment/treatment of PTSD’s E2 criterion. We developed and validated a measure assessing PTSD’s E2 criterion (Posttrauma Risky Behaviors Questionnaire [PRBQ]). We used two trauma-exposed samples who completed the PRBQ with additional RSDB and mental health measures: 417 participants recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and 530 college students. We followed recommended guidelines to develop the PRBQ; the PRBQ measured a unitary construct of RSDBs and demonstrated very good–excellent internal consistency (.94 and .82 in community and student samples, respectively). The PRBQ demonstrated convergent validity with measures of RSDBs (significant r/rs/rpb range = .10–.68) and mental health (significant r/rs/rpb range = .29–.65), and construct validity wherein severity and clinically significant levels of PTSD’s E2 criterion were associated with higher PRBQ scores. The PRBQ had incremental validity in predicting PTSD’s E2 criterion above and beyond an established measure of RSDBs (Risky Behaviors Questionnaire) in the community sample. Our results provide initial support for the utility, reliability, and validity (content, convergent, construct, and incremental) of the PRBQ in uniquely assessing PTSD’s E2 criterion (posttrauma RSDBs). The PRBQ is a practical and valid alternative to using PTSD’s single-item E2 criterion or a time-consuming battery of different RSDB measurers in clinical practice.